Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers (Page 3)
Thread Tools
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 11:49 AM
 
Originally posted by xenu:
From the article linked to on page one ...

'A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.'

Creationists were simply trying another approach in their desperate attempts to disparage the theory of evolution.

Just because it had a secular purpose doesn't mean that was the source of that purpose.
I didn't base my statement on the article. I based it on the judge's actual written opinion, which the article (not very accurately) summarizes. I posted the link above if you want to read it.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 12:43 PM
 
This thread inspired me to change my signature.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
What we don't know is whether or not there is an ingredient in nylon similar to that which bacteria may micro-evolve the ability to ingest naturally. Many studies have been performed and they do not support my thought that bacteria may initially have possessed the ability to micro-evolve in this manner. In short, this one I give you with hesitance.
I don't understand what you mean by "micro-evolve" here. The term doesn't really have a technical meaning, since biologically evolution is just evolution. Certainly the bacteria were able to evolve this ability — they did. I don't see how studies could have determined that the bacteria were not able to do this.

I think I'm more or less just perplexed.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 07:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Chuckit:
I don't understand what you mean by "micro-evolve" here. The term doesn't really have a technical meaning, since biologically evolution is just evolution. Certainly the bacteria were able to evolve this ability — they did. I don't see how studies could have determined that the bacteria were not able to do this.
Because micro-evolution is just a made up word, we have admittance the bacteria gained new information here and evolved to a new strain of the bacteria. Yet we still are struggling, it seems, with the fact that the bacteria can evolve anything further...

Those bacteria didn't lose any characteristics that were detrimental, but gained the ability to digest nylon.

We know quite well how nylon looks like on the molecular level. We also know (quite?) well what bacteria eat normally. So his objection is wrong.

Here is another example of NEW INFORMATION.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0304081153.htm

These monkeys had (for simplicity) GeneA which digested compounds 1 and 2. GeneA duplicated and then specialized; GeneA-1 became better at digesting compound 1 and GeneA-2 improved at digesting compound 2.

Either way, you've got "new information" operating here.


Wassup with shifting the goalposts.

The question was asked: how does information increase. That question was answered, yes?

So now it is accepted that mutation plus gene duplication can increase the amount of available information. There is a mechanism to increase information, naturalistically. So that issue is put to rest. Information CAN increase naturalistically.

Now, it seems the "change beyond certain borders must be impossible" card is rearing its head.

Microevolution+microevolution+microevolution+micro evolution...+microevolution=macroevolution UNLESS there is a mechanism to stop changes from accumulating past a certain point.

Without barriers, any strand of DNA can turn into any other strand of DNA. AAAAAA can turn into GGGGGG, unless there's something to stop it at AAAGGG. Where's that mechanism?

The only thing that stops a fertilized frog egg from growing into a horse is a long sequence of 4 letters. Naturalistically, that sequence can change from any one combination, to any other, and can even increase or decrease in length*. Evolution works. It is gracefully simple in concept, and complex beyond our wildest imaginings in execution.

* And so help me if someone tries to turn this into the strawman that "evolution says horses should come from frog eggs" I am pointing out here and now that that is absurd, is exactly not what I am saying. I am saying that given imperfect duplication of heritable information, and differential reproductive success, in a world with limited resources, then evolution has no problem accounting for the amazing diversity of life around us, even if 4 billion years ago there was only one single kind of life at all.
( Last edited by zerostar; Jan 19, 2005 at 09:04 AM. )
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 08:39 PM
 
Recent evidenceshows that molecular clocks tick at differing rates depending upon different lineages and different genes. i.e.; the gene that encodes superoxide dismutase has 5 times the base pair substitution rate in certain species of Drosophila, the fruit fly, compared to other multicellular organisms. Another gene, Odysseus, has "evolved" more in the last 500 thousand years than the preceding 700 million years (1000 times faster rate now than in the past). The clock and the conclusions derived of it cannot be explained or predicted.
The tree, establishes for me and imagination wrought with leaps and connections that otherwise do not exist in reality. Current taxonomy classifies all living organisms into 3 categories; eubacteria ("common" bacteria), Archaea ("ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) and eukaryotes (all other living forms, including you and me). Recent data suggests that certain eubacteria are more closely related to Archaea, and that certain Archaea are not related at all. In an examination of 13 fully sequenced genomes, including bacteria, Archaea, and the eukaryote, (yeast), scientists found that each microbe shares between 77% and 17% of its genes with another organism, with no clear relationships between species. The 'tree of life' is being criticized by modern science for it's woeful lacking.
I thought i'd just point out all the opportunities in a single paragraph for you to insert links to the specific studies, scientists etc. I think "recent data" and "scientists" is a little bit on the vague side and i'd like to see that "recent data" myself.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the tree of life is completly certain, especially in the very oldest branches.

From a conference in Chicago
*Do you mean the conference held 1980? I can't find anything about this outside creationists sites. Perhaps you could post a link?

All with 'exceedingly similar' DNA and classified as 'horse' none the less. Same with the rabbit examples you gave. These similarties and differences do not establish yet for me, credibility for modern synthesis evolutionary theory.
The number of chromosomes doesn't matter as much as you think.

The fossil record continues (in spite of your statement to the contrary) to offer examples of species exploding onto the scene. There are no findings of pre-Cambrian matter that illustrate ancestory nor do current theories explain away the incredible improbability of matter increasing to the degree of complexity and in the span of time that we find them to have 'evolved'. In short, evidence offers fewer answers and greater questions.
..as expected by punctuated equilibria and the small probability of fossilization. Do you have probability calculations that illustrates the "incredible improbability of matter increasing to the degree of complexity and in the span of time that we find them to have 'evolved'"? Because scientists are more surprised over how slow things have evolved compared to the potential amount of evolving they could have accomplished.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 10:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Again, the stickers single out evolution as a dubious "theory" (rather than a more accurately-described scientific theory
No where, in no manner whatsoever, does it say evolution is dubious. The judge used his bench to rule against people, not policy. This is a mistake. Would you appreciate a judge who didn't like homosexuals, to rule against their initiated policy to be free of harrassment? We fight these problems every day and we try to persuade those in positions of power to rule on policy, not people.
-- remember, the vast majority has no idea what "theory" really implies in scientific terminology).
They paricularly find this difficult with the theory of Intelligent Design.
The fact remains that any other scientific concept could have been addressed, but evolution -- a concept that is unpleasant for some religious groups...
do you know why religious people might be concerned about the teaching of something that assigns purely natural phenomena to something they've been taught at home has been manipulated by intelligent design? Why even go there. You can teach micro-evolution without stepping on anyone's toes, you can even say it is being debated in the scientific community whether or not this mechanism is sufficient enough to beget macro-evolution. Others, who argue in favor of intelligent design believe the mechanism is insufficient because..., but they can't mention Intelligent Design not because it doesn't have scientific merit and can't be witnessed in the incredible complexity of a cell, but because it mentions a potential deity. Science is not void of dogma, just any deitous dogma. Science should never squelch or hinder ANY possibility. DNA is often compared to computer encoding and has 'governor genes', but let's NEVER discuss the possibility that it's entirely plausible, it was designed as such???
This brings religious belief and reasoning into public schools. See how this might be unconstitutional?
What religion, Intelligent Designism??? I know the thought of Intelligent Design may be unpleasant for some atheist groups, but let's not be concerned about stepping only on the religious' toes right? I mean, this is science not to be concerned about what or who the data offends, it is data none-the-less. I see how ruling against people and not policy is unconstitutional, yes!
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 11:05 AM
 
Originally posted by zerostar:
I thought i'd just point out all the opportunities in a single paragraph for you to insert links to the specific studies, scientists etc. I think "recent data" and "scientists" is a little bit on the vague side and i'd like to see that "recent data" myself.
Are you saying that you are not aware of the fact that molecular clocks tick at differing rates depending upon different lineages and different genes? You need links for this?
Why would I grant you links to the above when you have ignored my request for links regarding your suppositions? If I grant you links regarding scientists other than secular-humanists and atheists, is it possible they too can have credibility? I've posted numerous links and I find those links only productive for those with an open mind. The folks I debate regarding the above like to simply point at people with differing views using the same evidence as 'creationist quacks'. We should be able to debate facts without giving you an opportunity for simple insults that would likely damage your credibility in lacking an open and scientific mind anyway.
I don't think anyone has claimed that the tree of life is completly certain, especially in the very oldest branches.
I've been debating these concepts for a while and the one thing I notice more than anything else, are suppositions and conclusions made from 'less-than-conclusive" evidence. I like to keep questionable information in perspective. I'm glad to see you do as well.
*Do you mean the conference held 1980? I can't find anything about this outside creationists sites. Perhaps you could post a link?
First of all, why would it matter what year it was held, evolutionists still banter about conceptions and misconceptions propogated from the early 1900's. Something stands until it is later, through extensive study, debunked and/or changed. Furthermore, if an argument is compelling, it should not matter where it came from. There are thinking and knowledgeable people that disagree with you, you should know that. You are making the same mistake as the judge by not considering the data, only the people "behind" the data.
The number of chromosomes doesn't matter as much as you think.
I know. That's why I'm not the one that brought them up in the first place.
..as expected by punctuated equilibria and the small probability of fossilization.
You mean the lacking fossil record with regard to Pre-Cambrian matter? The Pre-Cambrian sentiment is the most suitable for fossilizing soft-tissue matter. We find soft-tissue matter in other taxa quite frequently. Anything from sponges, through plants, to Jelly-fish.
Do you have probability calculations that illustrates the "incredible improbability of matter increasing to the degree of complexity and in the span of time that we find them to have 'evolved'"?
More importantly, does evolution theory have a calculator?
Because scientists are more surprised over how slow things have evolved compared to the potential amount of evolving they could have accomplished.
slight correction on this; Scientists are more surprised over how seemingly slow things have evolved when compared to how quickly they actually did according to punctuated-equillibrium and the evidence to support it. In short, they are surprised and confounded by conflicting data. My bottom line is this; the religious that say "anything, but the Bible and Intelligent Design" are closed-minded and unscientific in their approach to the truth. The scientist who says; "anything, but the Bible and Intelligent Design" are equally as motivated, but not in the interest of science or the truth.

In short, the judge made a ruling against a people, not a policy. This is mistaken.
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 05:44 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
They paricularly find this difficult with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Until the existence of God is rigorously proven to scientific standards, intelligent design is a flagrant violation of Occam's razor. This is the same reason we don't believe that stones on the floor of streams were made by little smoothing-nymphs. If you assume the existence of God or smoothing-nymphs, both seem perfectly logical, but the fact is that science does not acknowledge the existence of either (it doesn't necessarily deny them, but they certainly aren't usable in a scientific theory).
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 07:05 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
No where, in no manner whatsoever, does it say evolution is dubious.
Do you honestly believe that?

Back to basics:
1. Evolution is singled out in a textbook that teaches about more theories than just that of evolution.
2. Theory's popular, non-scientific definition coincides with "hunch."
3. Evolution is described as "a theory, not a fact"; the not-a-fact business further reinforcing theory's popular use.

Now, again, do you honestly believe that the stickers had no intent of shedding uncertain light on evolution by labeling it with the unfortunately dualistic term, "theory"?
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 07:12 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
They paricularly find this difficult with the theory of Intelligent Design.
If you could provide any links about this theory and with what substantial evidence it is founded on, please do.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
do you know why religious people might be concerned about the teaching of something that assigns purely natural phenomena to something they've been taught at home has been manipulated by intelligent design? Why even go there. You can teach micro-evolution without stepping on anyone's toes, you can even say it is being debated in the scientific community whether or not this mechanism is sufficient enough to beget macro-evolution. Others, who argue in favor of intelligent design believe the mechanism is insufficient because..., but they can't mention Intelligent Design not because it doesn't have scientific merit and can't be witnessed in the incredible complexity of a cell, but because it mentions a potential deity. Science is not void of dogma, just any deitous dogma. Science should never squelch or hinder ANY possibility. DNA is often compared to computer encoding and has 'governor genes', but let's NEVER discuss the possibility that it's entirely plausible, it was designed as such???
OK...

Please explain what you mean by "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." I also don't think anyone would argue against the "possibility" of a god or something like it, but with evolution we have so much evidence, along with reproducible lab results. What has been done, in the lab, concerning intelligent design? Links, please.

What religion, Intelligent Designism??? I know the thought of Intelligent Design may be unpleasant for some atheist groups, but let's not be concerned about stepping only on the religious' toes right? I mean, this is science not to be concerned about what or who the data offends, it is data none-the-less. I see how ruling against people and not policy is unconstitutional, yes!
What religion? Christianity, for one (but you already knew that). Not all of it, but a considerable number of Christians are immediately against the idea of evolution.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 09:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
What religion? Christianity, for one (but you already knew that). Not all of it, but a considerable number of Christians are immediately against the idea of evolution.
Oddly enough, most of those are located in the United States.

That seems strange for a nation perceived as "modern" and whose self-perception includes "Leader of the Free World™".

-s*
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 12:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That seems strange for a nation perceived as "modern" and whose self-perception includes "Leader of the Free World™".
This nation was founded by a conservative lot. A better understanding/acceptance of evolution is just one thing we need. We could also use a younger drinking age and a better distinction between nudity and pornography.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
IceBreaker
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 01:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oddly enough, most of those are located in the United States.

That seems strange for a nation perceived as "modern" and whose self-perception includes "Leader of the Free World™".

-s*
That is why we are the "Leader of the Free World™".
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 02:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That seems strange for a nation perceived as "modern" and whose self-perception includes "Leader of the Free World™".
I find the title "Leader of the Free World" pretty strange in and of itself.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 04:20 AM
 
Originally posted by zerostar:
Well, TETENAL answered this... you just opened your mouth and showed us how ignorant you are on the subject.

I don't think it is wise to debate a topic when you don't know s hit about it.

You need to ask that question to The Big Bang theory or something similar
You need to chill the heck out.

The question asked about what holes exist in evolutionary theory. I simply brought up that nobody knows where the huge amount of energy needed to start it all came from. That's a pretty big hole.

If you would stop being on the defensive for just one second, you will see evolution is not EVIL-UTION out to disprove a God or a Higher Power or even begin to debate the beginnings of the universe.
You need to chill the heck out.

I rarely come into these threads, for I am not big into religion. And I never claimed "EVIL-UTION is out to disprove a God". I simply had a hole that I wanted to pint out.

Evolutionary theory simply defines the mechanics of the evolutionary process that we observe.
What evolutionary process related to anything human have we "observed"? Did a chimpanzee give birth to a caveman recently?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 04:39 AM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
The question asked about what holes exist in evolutionary theory. I simply brought up that nobody knows where the huge amount of energy needed to start it all came from. That's a pretty big hole.
It's not a hole because it isn't within the scope of the theory of evolution. That's like saying that the theory of gravity has a hole because it doesn't explain how the species came about.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What evolutionary process related to anything human have we "observed"? Did a chimpanzee give birth to a caveman recently?
Uh...you're joking, right? Sending up uninformed creationists who try to make fun of a theory they don't even understand?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 11:35 AM
 
If you could provide any links about this theory and with what substantial evidence it is founded on, please do.
First of all, I've already discussed why I don't generally provide links. I'll be honest with you, I've found that if a scientist makes one mistake, but offers 15 valuable contributions to science; in this forum the focus would likely be on the one mistake. I don't post links because it is a disingenuous request in the first place and I dare say you already know where to find the info for which you're asking. There's a wealth of it, if you are truly interested and inquiring you will know exactly where to go. I will give you a short list of evidence that Intelligent Design is hard at work, keep in mind that the amount of evidence for design is endless and my summary is just a quick hit on biggies. Virtually everywhere you turn, there are evidences of design. Some of them as follows;
Astronomical evidence for design;

strong nuclear force constant. If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable, if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen.

weak nuclear force constant; if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars, if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.

gravitational force constant; if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly, if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production.

entropy level of the universe; if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation.

average distance between galaxies; if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time. if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed.

average distance between stars; if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form. if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized.

decay rate of the proton; if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation.
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small; certain life-essential elements would be unstable. if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great; certain life-essential elements would be unstable.

age of the universe; if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy. if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.

The Anthropic Principle; Often in science and especially with regards to biological discovery you see evidence in the very lingo used. Words like; "instruction", "binary-encoding", "principles", "laws", "directors", "fine-tuning", etc...the implications in scientific discovery and the language used to describe them, in and of themselves point to ID time and again. It's by these laws that we can make interpretations, predictions, and conclusions. We take these principles and laws for granted and we have yet to see nature "create" a new law. Only the discovery and interpretation of those already in existance.

A simple example is the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 to the 40th power without destroying our opportunity to exist. Even Hawking commented on this improbability w/o Intelligence, yet remarkably still denies any intelligence. By the end of 2001, astronomers had discovered more than 150 finely-tuned characteristics necessary to support intelligent physical life and the odds of these "precise occurrances" were found to be less than one in 10 to the 173rd power. Statistical impossibility. Statistical probabilities address the plausibility of something happening by chance. In this case, evidence against chance points to evidence of ID. Humanity lives in a unique location and moment, in cosmic space-time. Physicist Paul Davies concluded that "the physical evidence for design of the universe and of Earth for human life could rightly be described as overwhelming."

Physics; British astrophysicist Paul Davies on the laws of physics; "the laws seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingeniousdesign." This is a man who wrote a book on why Quantum Tunneling created the Universe and not a God.

Convergence; similarities between animals from entirely different environments with completely different "forces" at work. The chameleon (land dweller) finds depth perception using a single eye. Scientists believe the sandlance (fish) also determines depth perception in this manner. Both the sandlance and the chameleon's eyes are covered by skin to prevent them from being conspicuous to predators and prey. The feeding behavior of both animals is also the same. The trajectory that the chameleon tongue takes when attacking its prey is the same as that taken by the sandlance when it lunges for its prey. The evidence of convergence between animals in completely different enviornmens is vast and points to common need, not common ancestory. It is also not explainable using natural phenomena, or natural selection.

Folks, there are literally hundreds of thousands of these examples and I haven't even touched on the incredible complexity of the simplest of cells. Each of it's components working in beautiful harmony in ways that can only be described as "directed", "encoded", "engineered", "repaired", "able", "principled", "lawful", and "fine-tuned". Don't take my words for it, take the scientist's. Believe me, if they could find more adequate terms for the above, they would. Unfortunately, there are none.

I'd like to add that the first accusation of those in favor of the theory of evolution is that it's opponents know very little about the theory. Conversely; many of you know very little about the theory of ID. ID does not define what creator, or what god. It does not site passages from the Bible nor does it point to DVD's by Kent Hovind, and Answers in Genesis. The Theory of ID welcomes the kinds of critical scrutiny applied to nontheistic models, but it also invites refinement and critical comparison with other theistic and deistic models. ID seeks first to establish the possible existence of some undefined intelligent designer, then the probable existence of such a designer, and later, perhaps, to discuss the plausible and discernable attributes of the designer. They are succeeding and while many of you quietly tuck away evidence of design, more evidence of it emerges. You'll use the very words that imply design while denying any plausible design model simply because "design" might be implied. This lacks objectivity and cannot be assigned; 'science'. This does not make a conspiracy, but it gives thrust to a philosophy. Like the judge who mistakenly ruled against the "people behind the" stickers, he ruled in favor of his own philosophy founded upon ignorance of competant and varying models.
Please explain what you mean by "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." I also don't think anyone would argue against the "possibility" of a god or something like it, but with evolution we have so much evidence, along with reproducible lab results. What has been done, in the lab, concerning intelligent design? Links, please.
You don't need links. Link yourself to any scientific study today and read the conclusions. Decide for yourself how conclusive the findings are and pay close attention to the language used. I've already described the difference between maco and micro-evolution. While the mechanism for micro-evolution is found to be woefully inadequate to beget macro, it's no wonder you claim ignorance here. Unless your request for knowledge was disingenuous. Nothing peeves me more.
What religion? Christianity, for one (but you already knew that). Not all of it, but a considerable number of Christians are immediately against the idea of evolution.
Wrong. Proponents of ID while relatively quiet, are comprised of astro-phycisists, doctors, Muslims, Agnostics, Geologists, Paleontologists, Archeologists, Biologists, Professors, Theologians from all sects, etc...Proponents of ID are against the notion that all we know exists happened strictly by natural phenomena and find it to be equally as dogmatic as any religion or myth. They embrace micro-evolution because adaptation is testable, verifiable, objective, and conclusive. Macro-evolution is not. Divergence over billions of years resulting in increased complexity against all known laws of entropy in closed and open systems; establishing common-ancestory and the resultant suppositions made using one mechanism, without explaining how, why, or where and providing no substantive evidences nor plausible models for how or why this mechanism is connected to the other deems it a dogma. Those who loosely throw around the term; "evolution" are mistakenly accrediting the known and convoluting it with the unknown. The judge in this thread likewise has displayed intolerance through fear facilitated by ignorance.
ebuddy
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 11:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Chuckit:
It's not a hole because it isn't within the scope of the theory of evolution. That's like saying that the theory of gravity has a hole because it doesn't explain how the species came about.
Tell me how man evolved WITHOUT the earth and the universe being created.

It looks like you're afraid to go there, so we'll skip over the prerequisite planetary creation and fast forward to the creation of man? How convenient for you.

The energy source for ALL OF CREATION hasn't even come close to being found or identified. That's a huge hole.

So the evolutionists prefer to start with a puddle of hot water filled with some single-cell organisms without caring to explain how the water (or the earth, or the organisms) got there in the first place.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 01:48 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
<quick snip>
I don't have time to address things individually now, but let me bring up a few things.

Back to the topic here.

First of all, yes, the people who influenced the appearance of the sticker in Cobb County, Georgia, are--the vast or complete majority of them--Christian, not agnostic proprietors of intelligent design, so don't tell me I'm "wrong."

Secondly, you still haven't addressed my previous post:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=3#post2371189
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2005, 01:56 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
Tell me how man evolved WITHOUT the earth and the universe being created.
So you're admitting that man evolved, then?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It looks like you're afraid to go there, so we'll skip over the prerequisite planetary creation and fast forward to the creation of man? How convenient for you.
The first emergence of life is not required for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with variety in life and how life can change. Your argument is irrelevant. You might as well ask: "Tell me how man returns to this earth of ours, seconds after jumping off of it, WITHOUT hte earth and the universe being created [by a god, I assume you mean]."

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The energy source for ALL OF CREATION hasn't even come close to being found or identified. That's a huge hole.
A huge hole in what? It's not a hole in evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So the evolutionists prefer to start with a puddle of hot water filled with some single-cell organisms without caring to explain how the water (or the earth, or the organisms) got there in the first place.
The former is within the scope of evolutionary theory, the latter is not. You really need to learn what evolutionary theory tries to explain, and what it doesn't try or need to explain.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 04:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
I don't have time to address things individually now, but let me bring up a few things.
Back to the topic here.
First of all, yes, the people who influenced the appearance of the sticker in Cobb County, Georgia, are--the vast or complete majority of them--Christian, not agnostic proprietors of intelligent design, so don't tell me I'm "wrong."
How is this right??? How is it right to use your bench to make a ruling dictated by a personal view in opposition to a specific group of people based upon philosophical differences. You don't make a ruling against a people, you make a ruling for a policy. I'm telling you yes; both you and the judge in Cobb County are wrong. I'm telling you that the judge made a ruling not based on whether or not the complainant had a valid case, but based on the fact that the complainant is Christian. You do the same. This isn't mob rules my friend, if there is one agnostic interested in ID and dedicates his time and talents to providing evidence of it, his work is equally as important as anyone elses. Trust me when I tell you that many will be looking to the same judge who may be opposed philosophically, to homosexuality. Is it equally justified that he should make a ruling against those that bring the case before him instead of considering the weight of their argument?
Secondly, you still haven't addressed my previous post in which Stradlater asked the following;
Do you honestly believe that?
Back to basics:
1. Evolution is singled out in a textbook that teaches about more theories than just that of evolution.
2. Theory's popular, non-scientific definition coincides with "hunch."
3. Evolution is described as "a theory, not a fact"; the not-a-fact business further reinforcing theory's popular use.
Honestly, I've not seen more poorly delivered questions. I believe I've addressed each point however, no less than twice. I believe the scientists involved in research, discovery, study, and conclusion (for the most part) are generally honest in their work and careful not to leap to too much conjecture and speculation. What the faithful do with this data, is entirely another thing. Afterall, their credibility is not on the line. Those textbooks do not even contain phrases like; "conclusive evidence suggests..." It simply says; "20 billion years ago..." (give or take away 20 million years not readily available). You see this time and again in anything from Dr. Seuss books, through encyclopedias, to elementary, Jr. Highschool, Highschool, and finally college text. How long can you continuously read seemingly conclusive statements without assuming it's conclusive and without challenging it's most basic precepts? Dating techniques, methodology, evidence for and against. Are not some children born and raised to believe in something that isn't true? Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy? If no one fails to maintain this ideal, it'd likely stay with most.

Science is more than knowing things, it's participating in the arrival of knowledge. Evolution can be taught in scientific context of what is known and what is unknown. Test and participate in the arrival of knowledge in the truest sense of observation. Those things not observable, let the parents decide. Granted, the information I have will likely not get published in Apes are US (mine) or National Geographic, but the evidence for ID, against evolution as it's currently being convoluted by conjecture, and for the validity and value of humankind. It's quiet evidence that doesn't scream at you in public media, and popular science. It's there. It may not be as fun nor profitable, but it's at the heart of it all. When we lack objectivity in science, we lose. When we lack objectivity in the judicial system, we lose big.
ebuddy
     
xenu
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 06:20 AM
 
Creationism explained

Larson is a genius.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion - Steven Weinberg.
     
xenu
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 06:39 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I didn't base my statement on the article. I based it on the judge's actual written opinion, which the article (not very accurately) summarizes. I posted the link above if you want to read it.
The denigrating evolution quote is straight out of the written opinion.
If nothing else, the case shows how ignorant the school board is concerning the theory of evolution, and its place in science.

The origin of the complaint was religious, and its aim is to promote religious beliefs as an alternative to evolution. The judge was correct to order its removal.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion - Steven Weinberg.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 07:34 AM
 
Originally posted by xenu:
The denigrating evolution quote is straight out of the written opinion.
Please, just read the opinion. Stop clinging to an inaccurate journalistic account when the original source is available to you.

There are two principle discusstions of law in the case. The quote is out of the second prong of the test the judge applied. That's the test where the judge decides what the subjective impression he thinks the sticker would create in the mind of the observer.

In the first prong, earlier in the opinion, the judge deals with the question of what the Board actually set out to do with the sticker. He says several times that they had a secular purpose, and their explanation was not a sham. They did not set out to advance a religious purpose. That's what I said.

The article's summary mashes these two inquiries together, and basically buries the first. It conveys an inaccurate impression of what the judge actually said.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 07:37 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
How is this right??? How is it right to use your bench to make a ruling dictated by a personal view in opposition to a specific group of people based upon philosophical differences. You don't make a ruling against a people, you make a ruling for a policy. I'm telling you yes; both you and the judge in Cobb County are wrong. I'm telling you that the judge made a ruling not based on whether or not the complainant had a valid case, but based on the fact that the complainant is Christian. You do the same. This isn't mob rules my friend, if there is one agnostic interested in ID and dedicates his time and talents to providing evidence of it, his work is equally as important as anyone elses. Trust me when I tell you that many will be looking to the same judge who may be opposed philosophically, to homosexuality. Is it equally justified that he should make a ruling against those that bring the case before him instead of considering the weight of their argument?
You keep repeating this, but it makes no sense. I don't believe you've read the opinion, which is based on a Constitutional principle that has long been held by the Supreme Court to prohibit state endorsement of religious doctrine, or excessive entanglement. He specifically cited precedent involving similar factual situations. That's the legal equivalent of "policy." You might disagree with his analysis and/or conclusions, or you might disagree with the "policy," but he did not just pull the decision out of his rear end and arbitrarily rule against "people."
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 07:55 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Are you saying that you are not aware of the fact that molecular clocks tick at differing rates depending upon different lineages and different genes? You need links for this?
Why would I grant you links to the above when you have ignored my request for links regarding your suppositions?
Show me what Links you asked for and I will GLADLY provide them.
Individual genes are a very small sample of the genome, so obviously the observed amounts of mutation will vary. Furthermore, active genes are under selection pressure, so the observed mutation rates will be higher than neutral DNA if they are adapting, or lower if they are very well established stable genes in which small mutations are lethal. Various genetic clock techniques rely on larger samples of neutral DNA. Since at worst we are only comparing relative times in the divergent tree for the globin superfamilly, the exact dates are unimportant.

More to the point, the genetic clock correlation is simply the cherry on the icing. The main argument is the nested hierarchy of the gene family and the correlation with existing species and the fossil evidence.


First of all, why would it matter what year it was held, evolutionists still banter about conceptions and misconceptions propogated from the early 1900's. Something stands until it is later, through extensive study, debunked and/or changed. Furthermore, if an argument is compelling, it should not matter where it came from.
Exactly. You seem to grasp this fundamental concept of science, so why don't you see the problem with what you are trying to do?

I'm an aircraft structures engineer. I work everyday with structural analysis that relies on principles that go back often hundreds of years. A lot of what I do, however, is quite literally on the cutting edge of technology using relatively new technology that is still being tested for long term durability and fatigue characteristics.

What you are suggesting is that it is ok to use data from 25 years ago, or speculation from 25 years ago, to base my current designs on? NO!! Absolutely not. It's out of date. Just like your conference. If you started reading all of the research that's been done in the various fields that relate to evolution today, you probably couldn't even read a fraction of it in the next several decades. Just like I couldn't keep up with all the recent advances relating to aircraft (assuming it was all de-classified). That's why we have to specialize. I do structural analysis, we have another group that deals with propulsion, and another group that deals with aerodynamics, etc.

If I'm building or working on older aircraft with little to no composite structure, say it's all aluminum, then sure, I can (and do) use data that goes way back. It's a proven material with a lot of history behind it. However, our new planes are lighter and stronger than those of just 10 years ago. We can't use the same data. And guess what? If you ask 10 different engineers what the best way to solve XXX problem is, you will most likely get ten different answers. I don't see why any other field of scientific endeavor would be any different. So what if the scientists don't all agree on the specifics. They aren't arguing about whether evolutions is "right or wrong", they are arguing about how this or that process works, or about how this adaptation could have occurred. BFD. All this proves to anyone who takes an honest look at it is that there is a lot of work still to do. We aren't going to stop researching, say goddidit, and be done.

All science is the same, I couldn't even begin to list most of the specialties associated with evolution, directly or inderectly. Yet, there is no questions, amongst all of those disparate scientific disciplines that evolution occurs, has occurd, and is resonsible for the variety of life on earth as we know it today.

Here's what the disagreement is about: how the shift in alleles causes a morphological (or other kind of) adaptation in a population; how speciation occurs; how poiont mutations affect an individual; how the mechanisms that cause point mutations happen and can be affected by envoronmental, ot other, factors... you get the idea. (I hope.)

And you're right about another thing too It doesn't matter wherethe argument comes from. If it is compelling, and can be verified by repeatable, testable data, etc., the argument stands on it's own merits, like evolution.

The whole concept of evolution is still very viable, and correct. It is such a broad, encompassing term that has proven to be very robust over the centuries (like gravity). But, like gravity, new research is raising questions about the mechanisms and processes that drive it. Doesn't mean we're gonna throw Darwin (or Einstein) out the window completely, as the basic underlying idea is sound.


You mean the lacking fossil record with regard to Pre-Cambrian matter? The Pre-Cambrian sentiment is the most suitable for fossilizing soft-tissue matter. We find soft-tissue matter in other taxa quite frequently. Anything from sponges, through plants, to Jelly-fish.
And we have pre-Cambrian fossils. Your point?

More importantly, does evolution theory have a calculator?
Yes, as I said, the amount of evolving that could have taken place with regards to current theory and mechanisms is greater than the amount that actually took place.

slight correction on this; Scientists are more surprised over how seemingly slow things have evolved when compared to how quickly they actually did according to punctuated-equillibrium and the evidence to support it.
No, how quickly they could have evolved compared to how quickly they did evolve. You're contradicting yourself in this statement. Punctuated equilibria is partly an explanation of why it went so slow at times.


It's not nice to take large segments of text without posting a reference to where you found them.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html
For instance.

If you've come with an open mind, it would be best to respond to the answers to your questions directly rather than quote mine article after article you find online that supports your current thoughts on the matter.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 09:01 AM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
The energy source for ALL OF CREATION hasn't even come close to being found or identified. That's a huge hole.
That may well be. But, holes in scientific theory are not proof of creation, just proof that an solid explanation has not been found yet. Creation is one possible explanation, but by it's nature unprovable, it will always remain a questionable explanation.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 09:25 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
You keep repeating this, but it makes no sense. I don't believe you've read the opinion, which is based on a Constitutional principle that has long been held by the Supreme Court to prohibit state endorsement of religious doctrine, or excessive entanglement. He specifically cited precedent involving similar factual situations. That's the legal equivalent of "policy." You might disagree with his analysis and/or conclusions, or you might disagree with the "policy," but he did not just pull the decision out of his rear end and arbitrarily rule against "people."
cool. Same could be said for precedent in rulings against homosexuals. You might be less forgiving of a judge who doesn't change with time and knowledge. I keep bringing it up, because the sticker was cerebral, not emotional, nor Creationist, Christian, or wrong. He ruled against the people behind the sticker and not the sticker itself. Most of evolution can be tested, observed and conclusive. Some of it cannot.
ebuddy
     
roberto blanco
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 10:18 AM
 
this sticker is absolute nonsens. "evolutionary theory" is taught as a fact because there simply is no better explanation at the moment about how "life really works". it's one of the most solid scientific theories of our times (an has nothing to do with an explanation of how "the universe" started)

the really stupid argument though is, that if something isn't proven 100% conclusively it is "mere" theory (and never fact?!), and as such, just as good as any other theory. yeah rright. *duh*

life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 10:41 AM
 
originally posted by Zerostar; Exactly. You seem to grasp this fundamental concept of science, so why don't you see the problem with what you are trying to do?
What is it you suppose I'm trying to do? I've never met a group of people more bent on trying to tag and label things. The sticker calls for examining evidence more critically. The stickers would not be necessary if the books and text regarding evolution hand-selected by the public school system weren't so evangelistic in nature.
All this proves to anyone who takes an honest look at it is that there is a lot of work still to do.
I see few, willing to take an honest look at it. Conversely, I see a motive to squelch any suggestion of taking an honest look at it. I am however encouraged by your open mind.
We aren't going to stop researching, say goddidit, and be done.
No one is suggesting that you say "godidit and be done". Why are you harping on a strawman here? The evidence of the fact that "godidit" is overwhelming, you'd do well to remain objective in this. You may just as well say; "timedidit and be done with it", but that's an equally shameful, dogmatic, and intellectually lazy way of approaching the data.
[quote]Here's what the disagreement is about : how the shift in alleles causes a morphological (or other kind of) adaptation in a population; how speciation occurs; how poiont mutations affect an individual; how the mechanisms that cause point mutations happen and can be affected by envoronmental, ot other, factors... you get the idea. (I hope.)[[quote]
I get the idea. They disagree on whether or not the mechanism for micro-evolution can manifest in alleged macro-evolution. We see duplication and adaptation, we do not see divergence resulting in wholly new species. Even in cases where we believe we have witnessed such speciation, we embrace 8 debates on what constitutes speciation. We generally witness degradation through mutation in disease and decay, but because this generality does not fit the evolutionary model with regard to macro-evolution we banter about means of decreasing entropy (i.e. closed vs open systems), not reverse entropy. The fossil record contains woefully little evidence that macro-evolution occurred. Evidence suggests because of the incredible similarities we find in DNA, the progression must've been relatively slow, yet vast variations of species explode onto the scene in the fossile record. The taxa that contains sediment most conducive to the preservation of soft tissue shows no ancestoral links, no transitionals, and very little of anything conclusive.
the argument stands on it's own merits, like evolution.
and as evidence warrants demerit, we move along as if nothing happened. Theory also falls on it's demerits, like evolution. The only thing missing in all this? Another model, wholly secular and natural-to explain origins.
Yes, as I said, the amount of evolving that could have taken place with regards to current theory and mechanisms is greater than the amount that actually took place.
These would be the very mechanisms admittedly still under investigation and debate.
t's not nice to take large segments of text without posting a reference to where you found them.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html
For instance.
If you've come with an open mind, it would be best to respond to the answers to your questions directly rather than quote mine article after article you find online that supports your current thoughts on the matter.
Revision to a statement I made at the top of this post; I've never met an individual more bent on trying to tag and label something or someone. Also, forgive me if I don't consider you an authority on what constitutes open-mindedness. Here we have you accusing me of plagiarizing from a web site I have not visited during this forum. Truth be told, there's a wealth of information out there regarding the evolutionary theory's lacking. I am not kidding when I tell you that none of the information I've given you has come directly from the site you copy-pasted above. Not one piece. You might know that those whacky Christians share information like the rest of the world. Please copy-paste my statement, then point exactly to what I've plagiarized. You can't? Then I'd invite you to kindly wipe that slobber from your bib. DUDE, GIVE ME A LINK TO DEBUNK!!! *no, I won't do it. I won't embrace disingenuous requests for links.* DUDE GIVE ME A LINK TO DEBUNK!!! *no* DUDE, GIVE ME A LINK!!! *no* OKAY THEN FINE! I'LL MAKE UP A LINK, SAY YOU PLAGIARIZED INFO DIRECTLY FROM IT, THEN DEBUNK THE LINK!!! I hope you realize how religious you've become in all this brother. Meanwhile, the supposition is made that any info gleaned from secular humanists, naturalists, or atheist sites are credible, but anything authored by Christians is deemed unreliable not because of the subject matter, but because of the people behind the subject matter. This is precisely what I'm talking about here. You illustrate it, demonstrate it, you even propogate it, yet still fail to see it. You can BS yourself man. I'm not buyin'!
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 10:52 AM
 
Originally posted by roberto blanco:
this sticker is absolute nonsens. "evolutionary theory" is taught as a fact because there simply is no better explanation at the moment about how "life really works".
Creationists misunderstand what evolution really is, and fixate on the extrapolation of evolution to the origin of the species.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Creationists misunderstand what evolution really is, and fixate on the extrapolation of evolution to the origin of the species.
This is a sweeping generalization Wiskedjak. I could say then; "naturalists misunderstand what ID really is, and fixate on one group of people who believe in ID"
ebuddy
     
roberto blanco
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 11:10 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is a sweeping generalization Wiskedjak. I could say then; "naturalists misunderstand what ID really is, and fixate on one group of people who believe in ID"
completely wrong analogy. the problem with "id" isn't the group of peolpe who beleive in it, the problem is that as an explanation of how life works it is far more problematic and less universally substantiated than "evolutionary theory".

should this ever change, it won't make any difference who believes either in evolution or "intelligent design".
( Last edited by roberto blanco; Jan 21, 2005 at 11:42 AM. )

life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 11:41 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
cool. Same could be said for precedent in rulings against homosexuals. You might be less forgiving of a judge who doesn't change with time and knowledge. I keep bringing it up, because the sticker was cerebral, not emotional, nor Creationist, Christian, or wrong. He ruled against the people behind the sticker and not the sticker itself. Most of evolution can be tested, observed and conclusive. Some of it cannot.
He ruled agaisnt the contextual implications and effects of the sticker, which in his opinion were rather obvious and violated an important Constitutional principle which could have applied with equal force to Moslems, Hindus, or Scientologists.

And no, it's not really analogous to decisions against homosexuals. I think what you're trying to say is that capricious decisions based solely on personal prejudice aren't desirable. I agree with that, but I don't think anyone reading this opinion would say that it's capricious or based solely on personal prejudice against Christians. One can disagree with it, but it's still a well-reasoned opinion based on well-recognized legal principles.

Creation science and intelligent design theory have to compete in the marketplace of ideas just like all other ideas - they don't get a special pass. Just because a few obscure scientists have a theory doesn't mean it gets equal time in the classroom. Unless and until enough qualified scientists (i.e. scientists with something other than diploma-mill credentials) decide that those theories have been adequately tested through the rigorous application of scientific method - as evolution has been - they will remain on the level of fringe science supported by little other than religious doctrine/"faith," which does not justify special warning stickers about evolution on public schoolbooks, which has the practical effect of entangling religious doctrine with public school instruction. Thus the judge's ruling.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 11:57 AM
 
There is a wealth of information here.
My opinion is this issue will not die any time soon.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 02:41 PM
 
Originally posted by roberto blanco:
completely wrong analogy. the problem with "id" isn't the group of peolpe who beleive in it, the problem is that as an explanation of how life works it is far more problematic and less universally substantiated than "evolutionary theory".
should this ever change, it won't make any difference who believes either in evolution or "intelligent design".
That's just it Blanco, the belief in ID runs surprisingly parallel to evolution. The difference is the dogma. Evos believe with enough time, the impossible becomes possible. ID-ists believe with a Designer, the seemingly impossible becomes possible. They have equally plausible theories with regard to origins. Admittedly, very little of evolution theory can even touch on origination, is not proveable, and the ancestoral connections unfortunately are simply not there. What is observable and testable, ID runs in line with Evolution. Again, they differ in the dogma.
ebuddy
     
roberto blanco
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
ID-ists believe with a Designer, the seemingly impossible becomes possible.
see, and that's just it. to me that's a cheap way out of having to come up with a solid and conclusive proof of how "things came to be". and last i checked, there is more (scientific) evidence for the "big bang theory" than for the existence of god (or a "designer")

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Admittedly, very little of evolution theory can even touch on origination
no, evolution theory is not concerned with "origination"

Originally posted by ebuddy:
and the ancestoral connections unfortunately are simply not there...
oh please, we've been over this before. there is enough evidence there to fill hundreds of libraries. and as far as observability goes, i believe that "repeatablity" in testing of a method and soundness of theory are even more convincing (at times) than "observable" processes.

life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 03:09 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is a sweeping generalization Wiskedjak. I could say then; "naturalists misunderstand what ID really is, and fixate on one group of people who believe in ID"
Fair enough.

The creationists responsible for these stickers misunderstand what evolution really is, and fixate on the extrapolation of evolution to the origin of the species.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 03:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
So you're admitting that man evolved, then?
I never said he didn't. I'm not here bashing evolutionary theory, I just pointed out that I think the failure to adequately describe the origins of life is a huge negative.

The first emergence of life is not required for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with variety in life and how life can change. Your argument is irrelevant. You might as well ask: "Tell me how man returns to this earth of ours, seconds after jumping off of it, WITHOUT hte earth and the universe being created [by a god, I assume you mean]."

A huge hole in what? It's not a hole in evolutionary theory.

The former is within the scope of evolutionary theory, the latter is not. You really need to learn what evolutionary theory tries to explain, and what it doesn't try or need to explain.
Then why is reknown evolutionary biologist David Deamermaking presentations on the Origin of Life at Evolutionary Theory conferences[/url]?

An interesting Deamer passage:
Evolutionary biologist David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, says the claim that evolution followed an inevitable progression should be qualified: "The inevitability depends on the origin of life and oxygenic photosynthesis."

He agrees that life arose in vesicles, but says that oxidative chemistry cannot explain everything from prokaryotes to humans.
If the origins of life are so outside the scope of evolutionary theory, then why are some of today's evolutionary theory leaders (like Deamer) spending so much time, energy, and resources researching and hypothesising about it?

Everything living evolves in some way, shape, or form. But we really need some solid evidence and/or theories about the origins of life to truly complete the evolutionary tale.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 03:25 PM
 
Creation science and intelligent design theory have to compete in the marketplace of ideas just like all other ideas - they don't get a special pass. Just because a few obscure scientists have a theory doesn't mean it gets equal time in the classroom. Unless and until enough qualified scientists (i.e. scientists with something other than diploma-mill credentials)
You mean obscure scientists like Ohm, Einstein, inventors like Newcomen, Cavendish, Darwin, and William Parsons. Did they even have diploma-mill credentials??? You assume they have no credentials because they are hobbyists. I can offer you staggering statistics when you consider the difference between hobby-scientists vs formally educated ones. Privatization and funding has been vastly more effective than Government funding and formal education with regard to technological advancement. They can go as far out of the box as possible because they are not indebted to any special interest.
decide that those theories have been adequately tested through the rigorous application of scientific method - as evolution has been - they will remain on the level of fringe science supported by little other than religious doctrine/"faith," which does not justify special warning stickers about evolution on public schoolbooks, which has the practical effect of entangling religious doctrine with public school instruction. Thus the judge's ruling.
I wholly disagree. The judge made a ruling based on implications and effects of the sticker? So, this same judge concerned about implications may find himself in a bit of a philosophical pickle with regards to gay-marriage. He may be concerned about the implications (whether wrong or right, we're assuming the judge is correct in this case because of precedent.) of poligamy, increased fraudulent marriages for citizenship, tax breaks, etc...His ruling in opposition to gay marriage is then correct because of implications? You might know we have legal precedent for gay marriage. I don't think it's a poor analogy, rather a bit of an intellectual trap of contradiction that I'm not sure you can adequately address.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 04:10 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
If the origins of life are so outside the scope of evolutionary theory, then why are some of today's evolutionary theory leaders (like Deamer) spending so much time, energy, and resources researching and hypothesising about it?
My personal opinion is that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life but that, when extropolated back, can be used as one possible explanation for the origin of life.
     
xenu
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 07:02 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please, just read the opinion. Stop clinging to an inaccurate journalistic account when the original source is available to you.

There are two principle discusstions of law in the case. The quote is out of the second prong of the test the judge applied. That's the test where the judge decides what the subjective impression he thinks the sticker would create in the mind of the observer.

In the first prong, earlier in the opinion, the judge deals with the question of what the Board actually set out to do with the sticker. He says several times that they had a secular purpose, and their explanation was not a sham. They did not set out to advance a religious purpose. That's what I said.

The article's summary mashes these two inquiries together, and basically buries the first. It conveys an inaccurate impression of what the judge actually said.
I did. The quote is straight out of the written opinion, as is the claim the sticker promotes religion.

The first section shows how stupid the school board is. They should all resign.
Their purpose may not have been religious, but the source and intent was. They should have had the brains to understand that.

The judge got it right as far as I am concerned.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion - Steven Weinberg.
     
xenu
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 07:06 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm not here bashing evolutionary theory, I just pointed out that I think the failure to adequately describe the origins of life is a huge negative.
How many times do you need to be told this - evolution says nothing about the origins of life.

That is a completely different theory.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion - Steven Weinberg.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 08:35 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
I never said he didn't. I'm not here bashing evolutionary theory
So do you think evolution is correct in so far as what it describes?

If the origins of life are so outside the scope of evolutionary theory, then why are some of today's evolutionary theory leaders (like Deamer) spending so much time, energy, and resources researching and hypothesising about it?
If you do think evolution is correct, as do I, then the formulation of a beginning theory is the next step to understanding our origins.

Someone here was bashing "talk origins" for the very name of the site and what it is talking about. The whole point is to talk origins, the only thing the site assumes is evolution.

Me and my colleagues (working in strictly biology) research and test with the assumption of evolution. This is truth to us, 100% of us. We speculate (talk) about origins all the time. We have deitists, atheists, christians, etc. and we strongly disagree on origins, but it is understood that we are in the beginnings of understanding our origins.

Should a person in my position not speculate on them? Should Einstein not have speculated on something outside his field or even scope of work?

This is how theories form, I think it is moot for now until we can test it further.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 08:38 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Meanwhile, the supposition is made that any info gleaned from secular humanists, naturalists, or atheist sites are credible, but anything authored by Christians is deemed unreliable not because of the subject matter, but because of the people behind the subject matter. This is precisely what I'm talking about here. You illustrate it, demonstrate it, you even propogate it, yet still fail to see it. You can BS yourself man. I'm not buyin'!
I haven't seen him make this supposition? You sound cranky...
( Last edited by mikellanes; Jan 21, 2005 at 08:46 PM. )
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 08:42 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
You mean obscure scientists like Ohm, Einstein, inventors like Newcomen, Cavendish, Darwin, and William Parsons. Did they even have diploma-mill credentials??? You assume they have no credentials because they are hobbyists. I can offer you staggering statistics when you consider the difference between hobby-scientists vs formally educated ones. Privatization and funding has been vastly more effective than Government funding and formal education with regard to technological advancement. They can go as far out of the box as possible because they are not indebted to any special interest.
I didn't say that there isn't value in thinking outside the box - obviously there is. My point is that our system is set up in such a way that even good outside-the-box theories have to compete and win in the marketplace of ideas. Ask a bona fide scientist what it takes just to get a paper published in a respected journal. Some of this is due to dogmatism, but most of it is due to the simple fact that it's important for new theories to be tested and validated. That's what science is about. The fact that you or anyone else thinks a new or different theory is valid doesn't make it so and doesn't entitle it to class time or special textbook stickers.

I think you're forgetting that for every valid outside-the-box theory, there are probably hundreds of invalid ones. Do you think all of them should be taught? The main reason Creation Science and ID get more attention is not because they're backed by solid science, but because they're endorsed by the religious. In scientific terms, they remain at the level of speculation.

I wholly disagree. The judge made a ruling based on implications and effects of the sticker? So, this same judge concerned about implications may find himself in a bit of a philosophical pickle with regards to gay-marriage. He may be concerned about the implications (whether wrong or right, we're assuming the judge is correct in this case because of precedent.) of poligamy, increased fraudulent marriages for citizenship, tax breaks, etc...His ruling in opposition to gay marriage is then correct because of implications? You might know we have legal precedent for gay marriage. I don't think it's a poor analogy, rather a bit of an intellectual trap of contradiction that I'm not sure you can adequately address.
The "effects" test is part of the Lemon test, which is what the Supreme Court relies upon in First Amendment establishment cases. The judge was required to apply it. You might disagree with how he applied it, or you might wish it didn't exist, but he didn't just pull it out of his hat, as you keep suggesting.

Similarly, if a judge were specifically required by law to consider the social effects of homosexuality, I would fully expect him to do so, whether I agreed with his conclusions or not. If he were not required to do so, but did so anyway, you'd have more of a problem. But that's not what happened here.

If the Constitution said "[the state] shall make no law respecting the practice of homosexuality," and if homosexuals induced a school board to put stickers on textbooks saying "Heterosexuality is just one type of sexuality; it might not be for everybody. Keep an open mind," you might have a useful analogy - the court would be asked to consider whether such a sticker had the effect of endorsing homosexuality, if only by implication.

Come back when you've actually read the opinion and understand it. You don't have to agree with it, but it would be helpful if you understood it.
( Last edited by zigzag; Jan 21, 2005 at 10:53 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 09:57 PM
 
Originally posted by xenu:
I did. The quote is straight out of the written opinion, as is the claim the sticker promotes religion. . .

. . . Their purpose may not have been religious, but the source and intent was.



Aha! I said that the judge said their purpose wasn't religious. Thank you for finally admitting as such. As you say, "[t]heir purpose may not have been religious but . . . "

But nothing. Their purpose wasn't religious. That is what I said, and that is what the judge said in the relevant part of his Opinion. The quote you relied on from the article was out of context and did not refute my statement.

The first section shows how stupid the school board is. They should all resign.
Their purpose may not have been religious, but the source and intent was. They should have had the brains to understand that.


You are misstating both the Lemon test and what the judge said here. Your hyperbolic statements about the Board aren't reflected in the Opinion. That's your opinion, not the judge's Opinion. His is (thankfully) more measured, and grounded in factual findings.

Their purpose may not have been religious, but the source and intent was.
This is simply self-contradictory. If the purpose wasn't religious, their intent cannot have been religious. Purpose is the same thing as intent. It's what they meant to do by requiring the sticker. It can't be both religious and not religious at the same time. It is one or the other, and the judge clearly held it wasn't religious.

Now, I am done arguing this. If you want to argue the judge got that factual finding wrong, you can take it up with him.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jan 21, 2005 at 10:22 PM. )
     
xenu
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 10:48 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Aha! I said that the judge said their purpose wasn't religious. Thank you for finally admitting as such. As you say, "[t]heir purpose may not have been religious but . . . "

But nothing. Their purpose wasn't religious. That is what I said, and that is what the judge said in the relevant part of his Opinion. The quote you relied on from the article was out of context and did not refute my statement.



You are misstating both the Lemon test and what the judge said here. Your hyperbolic statements about the Board aren't reflected in the Opinion. That's your opinion, not the judge's Opinion. His is (thankfully) more measured, and grounded in factual findings.

This is simply self-contradictory. If the purpose wasn't religious, their intent cannot have been religious. Purpose is the same thing as intent. It's what they meant to do by requiring the sticker. It can't be both religious and not religious at the same time. It is one or the other, and the judge clearly held it wasn't religious.

Now, I am done arguing this. If you want to argue the judge got that factual finding wrong, you can take it up with him. [/B]
It is very simple. Creationists wanted to disparage evolution. They thought they found a non-religious way to do it. They failed.

What part of that don't you understand?

That the board were too stupid to see this was made obvious in the opinion. This was not part of the judgement, simply a by-product of it.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion - Steven Weinberg.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2005, 11:32 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
Tell me how man evolved WITHOUT the earth and the universe being created.

It looks like you're afraid to go there, so we'll skip over the prerequisite planetary creation and fast forward to the creation of man? How convenient for you.
What are you talking about? You think the theory of evolution should encompass everything in the known universe?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The energy source for ALL OF CREATION hasn't even come close to being found or identified. That's a huge hole.

So the evolutionists prefer to start with a puddle of hot water filled with some single-cell organisms without caring to explain how the water (or the earth, or the organisms) got there in the first place.
The theory of gravity doesn't explain how the things it affects came into existence either. Is this a similarly "huge hole"?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If the origins of life are so outside the scope of evolutionary theory, then why are some of today's evolutionary theory leaders (like Deamer) spending so much time, energy, and resources researching and hypothesising about it?
Because "evolutionary theory leaders" are more commonly known as "biologists," and the origin of life is within the scope of biology even if it isn't within the scope of evolution.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2005, 12:02 AM
 
Originally posted by xenu:
It is very simple. Creationists wanted to disparage evolution. They thought they found a non-religious way to do it. They failed.

What part of that don't you understand?

That the board were too stupid to see this was made obvious in the opinion. This was not part of the judgement, simply a by-product of it.
I guess leaps of faith are not limited to Creationists because you have absolutely no evidence for any of what you say. It's just pure unsupported opinion.

Not to mention the fact your statements are internally contradictory. Again, either the purpose is to advance religion, or it isn't. It can't be both to advance religion, and not to advance religion simultanously. Saying that Creationists wanted to disparage evolution is to assert a religious objective -- something that the judge who looked at the evidence disagrees with.

You are basically calling the judge wrong on a factual issue based on no countervailing evidence. This is either a faith based argument, or pure bias.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jan 22, 2005 at 12:11 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,