Darwinists in Texas are seeking to remove a science standard that requires schools to teach both the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.
Under current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
But when the Texas Board of Education look to update state science standards this summer, some committee members will ask the board to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase, according to The New York Times.
Among those requesting the board to drop the phrase is Kevin Fisher, a committee member who told the NY Times that questions left unanswered by evolution shouldn't be regarded as its weaknesses.
Other critics include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past.
Several board members appear to favor the current standard, saying it maintains a balanced debate on evolution.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Bradley also dismissed concerns by critics over the board's intention to sneak religion into the classroom.
"The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."
Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."
"It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree," she told The Houston Chronicle.
Meanwhile, Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has rejected allegations that the group is using the "strength and weaknesses" rhetoric as a new strategy in pushing intelligent design in schools following the 2005 Dover case – when intelligent design was barred from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms.
On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther points out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then. In 2003, the Texas Board of Education was asked to enforce its previously adopted "strengths and weaknesses" language in biology textbooks but has yet to fully comply, according to Crowther.
RSS
... . . . ... I've got 6 kids....
This seems to be an echo of the La. Senate Approves Bill...page. :-) John Marcus Doe--ibid my posts there.
"At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit." Just FYI, it was someone in the printing industry who needed to fix the humidity in the room because the paper was turning into a ruffles potato chip want-a-be. The cooling effect was just a by-product of the effect. How do I know this? I spend quite a few years in the printing industry (my first work computer was a Mac IIsi with 8megs of ram and an 80mg HD...we were HOT to TROT...).
I was a single parent for about 5 years with the first 4 (I got custody of them for some very good reasons). I experienced some quite remarkable things during that time which even the die hard non-Christians had to admit must have been 'my God watching out for me'. I don't understand all the science, math or logic in this world (after all, the only people who think they do are nuts) but I do understand God loves His children and takes care of them. It is something I cannot rationally turn my back on simply because there is no other explaination.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," That is the worst BS I have ever heard. In science, and not in day to day language, a theory is a hypothesis that has wide range of acceptance as a result of the breadth of evidence and prroof. For example, The Electromagnetic throry and Maxell's Equation... However immense the evidence for a hypothesis might be, science forbids it from being a dogma, and thus it will still be considered a theory. So advice to the Vice-Chairman, careful on the word choice.
Hi runningdoc
While Newton and others believed in a creator does not mean they believed in what is today called ID. I believe they would have rejected this particular expression of a belief in a creator as not supported by the evidence and contrary to rationality. Believing in a creator is not the same thing as accepting pseudo science as valid.
runningdoc,
I believe your post Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:49 am gets to the heart of this matter. It demonstrates that your belief in a designer is a matter of faith and your view of the designs perfection is a matter of your personal opinion. This must be accepted in the way it is stated since you claim it only for yourself. By your own analogy of Tolkien (when he was refuting some literary critics of how far off base they were on his writings) shows that submission of such belief to objective or scientific analysis is fruitless.
What this shows is that while I have no basis for opposing your belief in these things as matters of faith (in fact I do not) the I.D. and creationist people have no buisness and no right to ask that faith based beliefs be accepted as science (which they do).
I in fact do happen to believe in a designer of the universe and all of its natural workings, processes and dynamics, including gravity and evolution. I simply see no conflict between science and that belief. I personally do not believe that every organism is perfect if the standard is that it does its function perfectly and has every possible design advantage to the environment and its function. However I see this issue of perfection or complexity (which the ID people make much of) as being irrelevant. I believe as C.S. Lewis described in his writings that the miracle of rationality and God reaching into his creation through us everyday is a far greater miracle than any legendary stopping of the sun in the sky, or world wide flood, etc.
Sorry that should be "their" not "there"..
Runningdoc (checking I got that bit right!!)
I think his belief in a creator (which was most likely of the deistic sort) and his understanding of gravity (and of which on some points he was wrong but thats quite understandable) are totally seperate, it would be quite possible for Newton to be a agnostic/atheist/ druid etc... and stilI come to the same conclusions.
I'm certain that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design but all that tells me is that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design, it tells me nothing about the correctness of there conclusions, I might as well state (though I would not as I see how weak an arguament it is) that evolution must be correct because some intellignt people believe in it.
Stay cool
Steve
SteveH2O
The point about gravity and Newton was not about his orthodoxy or his lack thereof. I think he also like alchemy. The point was that he believed in a creator and understood gravity and described it without the aid of computers and lots of other toys.
Some very intelligent people have and do believe in intelligent design. That is the point.
Grace and Peace, runningdoC
Agent, IT huh that is interesting.
One last comment on interpretation. From JRR Tolkein, Interpretation of allegory belongs to the author. What a person meant by what they said or did belongs to them not to us. Unless you are clairvoyant, you cannot decide why I answer posts. I could just be a plant with CP trying to run up their hit numbers for ads. You wont know unless I tell you.
You can only speculate on what God's motive, kindness, goodness are unless you ask HIm and He tells you. You cannot deny the existence of a designer by criticising the design based on your interpretation of His motive.
I think everything about the human body is an elegant design. No one on this planet could have done better.
Grace and Peace, runningdoC
The software our company uses just went from a unix based platform to .NET framework. It's funny you should ask about open source,as I am downloading the latest Fedora distro as we speak. I do not work with it on my job, but I do enjoy dabbling with it on the side. Thankfully, our authority only covers the northeast corner of the state at this time. I am also having to learn how to do web development. We just got our website online last week. It's pretty basic, but it's a start. So I'm pretty much like a swiss army knife to my job, I have to know some of everything. I'm not complaining though, prior to this I was building steam turbines at power plants.At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit.Yeah, the kids can be tough, but they're worth it at the end of the day.I have enjoyed our conversation tonight,but I think my bed is calling my name,it's been a long day. Take care, and maybe I'll catch you on here this weekend. Until then I'll be keeping you in my prayers(that's just what I do)and will hopefully catch you back on here later this weekend. Good night my friend.
" 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. "
No kidding man, no kidding. you know what day it is better yet what month? =)
In your work, do you deal with open source, like unix or linix variants, or is it a strictly windows operation? the envioronement I work in is massive too, it's global really, office locations all over. But the systems I cover are only windows based, I dable in some Linux like Ubuntu or Red Hat, but generally the support for apps on their OS isn't what production integrity generally calls for. Don't get me wrong, I do study some in IT, but where I am at, I work with many of the latest tools, so for the most part I just review emerging technolgies instead of an educational overall like taking classes.
The IT market is still pretty good despite a slumping economy, I think I recall reading as many IT jobs are available now as during the height of the Dot.com era. Generally this part of the the workforce is cut as businesses look to reduce costs, but the demand is still high. You of all people should know how lacking the USA is in terms of training adequeate and enough people for our types of jobs, this is why HB-1 visas continually come up before congress as companies simply can't find enough people here. If we want to keep the good jobs here in the USA for us, our kids and generations to come it's important to back measures that ensure we are practicing the latest trends in science. And, equally as important, that our populace become more and more technologically and scientifically literate. It's either become literate in these new forms of knowledge or forsake a better quality of life and let other countries take your dominance in such areas. If you want a decent biology book, which is mindfull of christian theology, I would recomend Ken MIller's 'Finding Darwin's God'. It's not overly technical, but enough. His new book 'Only a Theory' just came out too, I'll have to see how good this one is.
agentorangex,
Didn't mean to get your handle wrong below.
regioagentorangex,
Wow, I had you figured for a biology professor at some major university. Amazing what we can learn about each other if we just take the time. I to grew up being fascinated with science. I was always more into astronomy than anything else. Many nights were spent gazing through my telescope into the heavens. I will never forget the thrill of seeing the rings of Saturn with my own eyes. I miss those days, and I think I may buy another telescope and start stargazing again.
Many years later, I started playing with computers as a hobby. It just progressed from there,I guess. Turns out I was a natural with them. Today, I am the IT manager for a state agency in South Carolina. We have a WAN that spreads over 4 counties, and I am the only IT person in our region.
I became a Christian 2 years ago, and I pray one day that I will be called into the ministry.I will not preach at you because you get plenty of that here already,lol. I spend most of my time studying the Bible and end times prophecy.(very interesting) My wife and I have 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. Top it all off, I'm a full time college student as well. So, do you see why I don't engage in prolonged arguments?I just don't have the energy. I do enjoy our conversations very much though.
kboswell,
Fair enough., no grudge. I work in IT as well (about 10 years), so I am not a biologist and wouldn't want to lead you on as if I was. No person is really any 'one thing', so even if I were a biologist, it wouldn't be the only domain in which I had something to add. I do however study and read the science journals from many fields in science as its what I enjoy: biology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy and Science in general is my passion. I don't work in the field of biology or paleontology, but I have some friends who do, some I met through the MN University which I graduated from and others from science fairs and such. On any note, I agree with you, the acceptance of science and god shouldn't be and aren't IMO mutually exclusive domains. I accept evolution as the best theory at present time (it could be partially wrong like Newton’s view of gravity), generally I follow biologists like Ken Miller or Kevin Padian as they are two of the most well respected members in molecular biology and paleontology. Dawkins, PZ Myers and other famed 'godless scientists' have their moments, but at times it's hard to get reasonable people to read or listen to them as sometimes their impression of them and their lacking faith erodes any chance of compression.
I grew up studying dinosaurs/paleontology, but after finding how the jobs sector wasn't very, shall we say, financially lucrative, I opted for other work I was also interested in - computers. I grew up the Silicon Valley, till only some years ago, so being involved with computers and technology was fate I suppose. I work with a very large private corporation based in MN but they are global as are the operations we support, and earlier I worked with IBM doing very much the same thing. What about you?
(flagged self)
agentorangex,
I'm not buying that book, I just wanted your opinion. I am a computer geek (network administrator) Don't have time to rack my brain on evolution. As far as the platypus, I was only commenting on how awkward it is, not trying to use it to argue any point. To me, it seems to be a cross between a duck and a beaver. These guys have you on the defensive. I don't have an alterior motive, just some conversation? I know what you believe, and I know what I believe. Does that mean we have to be at each others throat? I would hope not, as I respect your wisdom in the scientific field,and enjoy reading many of your posts.
“http://www.humandevolution.com/”
Lacking any details on what exactly ‘de-evolution’ entails, and how its backed up. I think just on face value and the lacking science publications this guys looking to make a buck, but go for it have at it and read it, I'll see if I can find a copy on the Internet. Sure the platypus is weird, so what? I mean, take a look at any of the earlier animals that lived and are no longer around. The mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals were weird as were early tetrapods like Tiktaalik or some weird dino/birds like Arhceopteryx, microraptor and others. As are the marine reptiles and flying reptiles, weird! Many very interesting species and types of life have come and gone on this planet, what are getting at? That evolutionary can’t account for a species like the Platypus? A recent genetic analysis on the platypus demonstrated their closest living ancestors and genetically how old they are, you can find it in the archive articles at pandasthumb.org and I’ll let you do the rest for yourself, I don’t want to spoil the excitement. Here's a hint though, they aren't marsupials and aren't placental mammals and lay leathery eggs (as opposed to hard shelled reptialn/bird eggs) and lack lactating nipples and instead lactate from modified pours and glands which are roudimentary nipples.
agentorangex,
Here is a link to a book about it. I see where it is a challenge to Darwinism. Anyways, have a peek if you like.
http://www.humandevolution.com/
My personal feeling is science and God should have no problem coexisting in peoples mind. Just because we figure out how something works, we still didn't invent it,or put it into play, that was done long ago. Just my 2 cents worth, and I was serious about the duck billed platypus last night.
“What is the theory of devolution?”
Doesn’t exist, it’s not even a scientific hypothesis, it’s not even a supported or tested idea. I don’t know where you got it from, but I am interested in reviewing it, but I am not too surprised to here it’s from an ID source. Perhaps they are just playing on word semantics. Organisms don’t de-evolve, they just simply evolve, or biologically change. To suggest they de-evolve would suggest they are, by evolution are degrading or disintegrating.
Evolution, as it pertains to biology generally means biological progression/advancement, and so to be devolving would be the inverse I suppose. Something like how the earlier primitive birds all had teeth, but now none do. The relic genes for teeth in birds however can be activated, so they are still hidden in their genomes. I guess another would be how all early primitive birds had wings and could fly, where now large groups of ‘thunder bids’ have lost, or evolved away the wings in which they have shrunk from atrophy.
Doc,
“There has to be a designer, if the design is done poorly’
No, not necessarily, after all most theists don’t invoke the proof positive existence of god by examples of poor or shoddy design. No, the always point and marvel at thing like human eye. For if poor design were enough to convince one of a god/designer than we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Think of what you’re saying here and how horridly unscientific and non logical it is. ‘If X exemplifies good design, than a designer made it’ and ‘ If X exemplifies POOR design, than again (somehow?) this shows a designer made it!’ Now, this could be said of such things made by men, as we are continually working and improving things. But how could this argument apply to a god which supposedly poofs things into instantly being? No, it makes no sense at all. You can’t on one hand marvel at the eye and trumpet ‘look god’ and then when something horridly designed is pointed out again trumpet ‘look god again!’. This is called having your cake and eating it too, you’re not basing a logical argument, you’re just saying any and all things, good or poor in their design are somehow evidence of a omnipotent (and all those other personal descriptions) type of god.
“you cannot decide whether a design is good or not unless you know the motive and goal of the designer.”
Sure we can. Ford made at the time auto’s, but in light of such obvious safety measures, his and other earlier proto autos were death machines. His motive was to make a profit and safety as in most things is only an after thought, until that is enough people become maimed and die as a result of unsafe products. One could argue such a shoddy design is proof no god made model T’s and other such death traps like the Ford Gremlin and it’s exploding gas tanks. No, from a god we would/should expect such omnipotent wisdom to avoid such obvious design flaws like lacking brakes or seat belts. And yet this are similar design flaws we find in all things. A god’s motive then? Negligence? Laziness?
So what is the ‘motive’ of the designer in the entire human reproductive process? What, he likes waste for kicks? And the Pandas Thumbs? Was he again just having some kicks on this particular mammal then? Oh, I know, you’ll tell me ‘panda’s thumbs were perfect before the fall’ or some rhetoric, but really is that your only rationalization? ‘man’s fault’, o well, sorry ol panda’s, suck it up!
Dear Runningdoc
First of all please accept my apolgies for the mistake concerning your name and any confusion the occured, one should always look before submiting....
The other three fundamental forces are, the strong, weak, and electromagnetism, together with gravity at very high temperatures/ energy levels, they unite to become one force (this is superunification). Electromagnetism and the weak force have already been unified in the electroweak theory for which Steve Weingberg won the nobel prize. The next step is the Grand Unified Theory which add the strong force to them.
They are still talking about gravitons as the boson for that force.
Newton certainly help us to understand gravity much better than it had been before, though like all men on any subject (including me!!) he was wrong about some things concerning it. I don't think though that he being a Christian has any relevance to his discoveries though as he could just have well been a muslim and come to the same conclusions. Its quite interesting to note that Newton was a denier of the Trinity, it would be fair to say he was by orthodox Christian beliefs a heretic. Food for thought?
Regards
Steve
agentorangex,
What is the theory of devolution? (or de-evolution)I have seen it mentioned in several ID studies I have read. I will not even try to claim that I understand it, but how does it fit in with evolution theory? If you have the time, could you tell me in simple terms what devolution is based on and how this and evolution theory are compatable or incompatable? Thanks.
So Agent, Then this means you have conceded the possiblity that a designer exists? There has to be a designer, if the design is done poorly. I am glad to know that you agree that a designer could exist at least long enough to criticize His design.
Again, you cannot decide whether a design is good or not unless you know the motive and goal of the designer.
Henry Ford designed cars. The model T was not a bad design unless you chose to drive it drunk or off a cliff. Part of your complaints about the design are bound up in the way we use the end product.
If you want to know more about the motive and end goal of the designer, read the Gospel of John. It is short, 21 chapters I think. It is mostly stories about the Son of God and very God Himself Jesus the Christ. If you are really intent on knowing his motives and goals, pray and ask Him to open your heart before you read it.
Grace and Peace, runningdoC
“when we started, we were not talking about omnibenevolance. We were talking about design.”
This is true, however part of identifying the design, is as you put it, know how well it servers its purpose and what the pros and cons of its design are and so they in the abstract define smart of stupid design. Earlier you referenced the bible to explain away why the birth process is painful and deadly. But this was only a small part of my entire question. I wasn’t solely discussing the birthing process but rather the entire reproduction process as a whole and how utterly poor designed it is.
“whether the designer is being benevolent or malevolent becomes a matter of theology and must be examined in the Bible’
I disagree, we don’t only have to turn to the bible to understand what a given design of a system is and if it appears malevolent or not, or optimally designed or not. We can objectively compare the system (X) and relate it to others similar and depending upon this we can formulate its ‘malevolent rating’ or how overall poor the design is. We could also review its design and based on simple adjustments we could also come to find that a particular system isn’t really greatly designed at all, it’s decent, but not optimal.
The first cars lacked seatbelts, brakes and airbags and other safety measures, so in the view we can easily say the early makers of autos were malevolent, if not at the very least negligent. The remediation and improvement process we humans use (R&D) is not supposedly like that of an omnipotent god though. A god would have, supposedly, made system X nearly optimally designed from the get go, as if he hasn’t why call him god in the first place right? At least, this is the perception of ‘instant and perfect creation’ we are told as per the Abrahamic religions. Now the question becomes, does god use a natural refinement process for his own creation, so that things can dynamically adapt and become improved over their predecessors? The answer seems like yes as one reviews how the universe has unfurled itself and how the biological process of evolution continually pushes species to refine themselves. This refinement however never achieves anything of optimal status; such refinements are always just ‘good enough’ to suffice for reproduction.
Agent, when we started, we were not talking about omnibenevolance. We were talking about design. Again, whether the designer is being benevolent or malevolent becomes a matter of theology and must be examined in the Bible. How you or I feel about the perfection of the design for reproduction does not decide God's motives, abilities, kindness or goodness.
In order to arrive at those ideas, one must examine God as He has chosen to reveal himself to us. You can look at creation and get a general sense of it. Or you can look at His word, the Bible and get a specific sense of it.
The most profoundly simple expression of it is in John 3:16. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
There are very specific explanations that we can find in scripture that explain why we struggle with physical problems that center around the fall of man. See Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12.
Again, you cannot make this kind of judgment based solely on the design. You must know motive, and the long term goal of the designer.
Neither of these things must be known to believe that there was a desiginer for our universe.
runningdoC
Steveh20, Runningdog? Must have been a Freudian slip I suppose.:-) LOL, I didnt notice that until this morning. I read your comments on gravity but I did not see how I could respond to them. I think I said something about the fact that no one knows exactly what gravity is or exactly how it works. I think I also said that it could be studied by either those who held to a design/creation viewpoint or an evolutionary one and that either one could describe it as well. I think I also noted that Newton is understood to have been a Christian and still understood gravity better than anyone of his time and most in ours.
I just went back and read your post and noticed that you addressed it to RD, I did not catch that RD was me. a little slow I suppose.
So, In that first trillionth, I assume you are talking about a big bang for the beginning of the universe, and from that comes 4 forces, gravity being one. What are other three, it has been 35 years since I took physics and I suspect I missed somethings starting with string theory whatever that is. What also is superunification? I am interested in this.
Are they still talking about gravitons?
Grace and Peace, runningdoC.
hello Runnningdog
You where very happy to make comments about gravity earlier, I replied, writing about the present thoughts concerning this most interesting of subjects. You have bene very quite since think then concrning this matter, I wondered what your thoughts might be on this subject?
I think it is important that all sides are debated so that studenst can come to a conclusion!!
Kind regards
Steve
“The question does not include the designers motive, ability, goals, perfection, or kindness”
Respectfully, I must disagree. You see, we are told the very personal nature of the Abrahamic god (loving, compassionate, all that jazz) and the nature of other gods for that matter. We are told they are omnipotent for instance and that they are benevolent, which in turn makes them omnibenevolent. So in this sense the expectation should be, under the presumption that he’s out and about designing things, that all ‘designed things’ should therefore exemplify such a trait as being omnibenevolent. They shouldn’t have the hallmarks of porous design, but this is what we can find, like the Pandas Thumb. What, does god have something against Pandas too then, is that what you're going to say? Where for instance is the omnibenevolence in something like a Black Hole?
“With regard to childbirth, go read the first three chapters of Genesis.”
You’re missing my point all together. On one hand you’re saying ‘the human reproductive process is quite swell!’ and then after all the flaws are laid bare, you retort with a ‘well, god made it that way, b/c we disobeyed him’. (Again reverting back to the old archaic ‘god made it that way’ argument). Well, which is it? Do you give it credit as being express design and noble, or don’t you? You can’t have your cake and eat it too, either it is or it isn’t.
“You see nothing in it about God I suppose, I see another part of His creation.”
Fine, where’s the omnibenevolence in black holes then? Sure they are complex, but the work of omnibenevolence ?
Hello Agent,
"So you have to ask yourself, why would the designer go to such lengths to create such a hostile process? This is of course under the assumption that this process/X is derived from express design to begin with."
I think we have turned a corner here. The original question is just whether or not reproduction or the eye were designed. The question does not include the designers motive, ability, goals, perfection, or kindness.
You will have to move to theology to get at those questions. I would submit to you that the only place you can find those answers on motive, ability, goals, perfection and kindness will be in the Bible. Yes, I believe that it is inspired (a subject also not connected to design), inerrant and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.
Created things including humans are a form of general revelation. God speaks to us through creation in a general sense.
If you want specific answers then it requires "special revelation"(this is a commonly used theological term not a late night religious tv joke) which is what the Bible is.
God answers those questions about motive, goals, ability, perfection kindness that you raise about design in the Bible.
With regard to childbirth, go read the first three chapters of Genesis. It wont take more than 15 minutes.
Examining black holes and understanding them does not require a religious test. You can be a worshipful atheist or a devoted Christian and still do the math. The disagreements begin when one decides to take a position on God and then apply it to the black hole. You see nothing in it about God I suppose, I see another part of His creation. That does not change the function of the black hole or the liklihood that either of us will understand and explain it.
runningdoc
”Isnt the problem more that you do not want there to be a designer, therefore you interpret design from that critical viewpoint?”
As I stated before, I have no personal or theological problems with finding that an alien or supernatural agent designed X system, the issue for me comes down again to qualifying it and trying to ensure statements are coherent and in the end produce actual verifiable knowledge which we can then use for our own survival.
By coherent, I mean one is assuming they are designed already and the next thing to determine is ‘does system X embody the work of a supposed omnibenevolent designer’, that is among many of the personal descriptions of the Abrahamic god. We are told it is many things, so when one views system X, one shouldn’t only look at it for how it its complexity = design, but also how its process or nature fits the qualities of said god who would be getting the credit in the end. These quantitative measurements are how we also know and understand a god and his works. So now, when we look at X, lets ask ourselves how well it embodies the personal traits we denote to particular gods and go from there.
A person can look at X (rainbows for instances) at then, do to ones own lacking understanding on what causes X to easily surmise’ god(s) done it’ or ‘leprechauns cause it’, it’s the oldest trick in the book. This declaration though answers very little, it doesn’t explain any details or processes involved, which is what we should also be concerned with.
The Biblical account of the pain of childbith is explained in Genesis. One question I've always had though, where did the duck-billed platypus come from and better yet...why? This is a truly odd/unique creature, would you agree?
“Why does a design have to meet your definition of perfection in order for it to have been designed? Isnt the clay in the hands of the potter? “
It doesn’t, my own subjective opinion on what is and isn’t ‘poor design’, isn’t what matters as much as say an collective and objective opinions/views based on facts. If you for instance find wise, omibenevolence in things such as Black Holes, then by all means rationalize it. It doesn’t matter if in my subjective opinion in how the order of how wisdom teeth come in is ‘good design’, in the end the facts of how such a process works determines what is and what isn’t deemed good or poor design. In the end, the theists are the ones setting the argument say X = design from god, so we need to better understand what such designs embody to understand the nature of the designer, should one exist.
“The design of the human reproductory system does many things very well including repopulating the planet inspite of disease, war, and abortion. “
Indeed it does, however that’s not the argument. The argument is that ‘X system’ is expressed evidence of god/designer by virtue of how ‘perfectly’ some subjectively find X to be, namely ‘the eye’. However, when we look at the eye, we find it to be far from perfect and still yet we find it to be quite extraordinary. Well, to be sure our reproduction system works well enough, but the entire process, designed or not is grossly wasteful and not an overly safe venture for mother or child. So you have to ask yourself, why would the designer go to such lengths to create such a hostile process? This is of course under the assumption that this process/X is derived from express design to begin with. Does the dangers of such a process, that otherwise aren’t so in other animals reproduction embody noble, wise design? No, not really. Virtually all animals don’t have such a painful and hostile reproduction process, so whence is the ‘great design’ in such a relative comparison in abstract?
’It seems like you go just as quickly to criticize the design as you claim that Christians resort to "god did it."
No, I look at it from a ‘why would a supposed omnibenevolent’ designer create such hostile X systems before giving credit where credit is due?’ No offence, but theists Many systems when viewed in the manner don’t appear to be the work of such a designer, and it forces one to consider how the nature of god could be described as omnibenevolent to begin with.
Hello Agent, Why does a design have to meet your definition of perfection in order for it to have been designed? Isnt the clay in the hands of the potter?
The design of the human reproductory system does many things very well including repopulating the planet inspite of disease, war, and abortion.
Isnt the problem more that you do not want there to be a designer, therefore you interpret design from that critical viewpoint?
It seems like you go just as quickly to criticize the design as you claim that Christians resort to "god did it."
ifeelfine72
No, I did not flag myself. CP has restored my comments.
Another such case of not really great overall design is how painful and life threatening the normal process of childbirth is. In the non industrialized world where such procedures are unknown, child birth kills, sometimes just the mother, other times both. Why would a designer make such a welcoming processes so utterly hostile? And lets not forget how in the abstract how utterly wasteful the entire process of reproduction actually is. A full 1/3 of all fertilizations don’t become zygotes, either from chromosome abnormalities, or from how the zygote doesn’t have the cervix lining around to feed it. Most animals, particularly mammals demonstrate signs of fertility as they go into heat and this way the males can easily identify when to reproduce. With the human reproductive system, on the outside appearance wise, it’s not so easy to know the ideal time. I am not saying that all things considered it’s the worst of all possible designs for reproduction, but in the abstract one can’t ignore all the flaws and only marvel at its good points and then surmise ‘ aha designer did it’. If this designer really did do ‘X’, then why is X not so optimally designed? Why doesn’t X exemplify the common perception of god being an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being? These are the hard theological questions that must be at least considered if not reconciled before surmising some omnibenevolent is the personified agent responsible for their existence.
Take black holes for instance. Their purpose? To utterly destroy and consume matter, essentially utterly hostile to anything especially life. So, what is the grand omnibenevolent design in having such things around if we are to assume some designer built them? On the other hand if we look at them via science we see them as a matter of consequence of what happens when matter is super concentrated and nothing more.
Doc,
“Agent, do you think that the appendix is just such a useless organ?”
No, it’s not absolutely useless, it plays a lesser if not nominal role in digestion, apparently its response to certain types of bacteria aid in such digestion, however without it, the human body can live perfectly fine. In fact, some people have to have them removed from appendicitis.
I would say a more useless, or design flawed system or one, which lacks genuine foresight and make it hard to argue such a design exhibits actual ‘purpose’ befitting the host and its survival or to ensure its least amount of pain and suffering in mind. Or more aptly ‘poor design’ would be something like how our jaws are rarely ever large enough to adequately house the wisdom teeth. Most types this insufficient space (poor design) results in the wisdom teeth intruding in on or erupting too close to other teeth, consequently crowding them out. To be sure the human teeth do not need to be perfectly aligned for its host to make use of the teeth, however this poor design results in generally poor alignment which results in more teeth which are harder to keep clean and as a result more cavities (ouch more pain!) then would really ideally be needed for the survival of the host.
star - are you flagging yourself? If you're not, whoever is flagging star, please stop.
Hello rd
Having just got up it appears everybody had been very busy overnight.
Gravity is very very intersting it would be fair to say that of the four forces that "run" the universe it is maybe the least understood, in fact for superunification to occur we will have to come up with a theory of quantum gravity and we are a loooooooooong way from that I would guess.
Current thinking on gravity is that it was the first force first to break off from the unified forces(in what is known as a phase transition) in the very first trillionths (and I may have made that figure far to large)of a second of the existenece of the universe, this was due to the universe expanding and cooling albeit it was still very very tiny, less than the size of an atom. A good way to think of this is to picture what happens to water if it is supercooled below zero and then being disturbed suddenly freezes, with "cracks" seperating parts of the frozen water, these cracks are the diffrent phase transitions as the four forces seperate,coming into existence as the universe cools and expands.
Given the chance to live long enough and see man land on Mars or superunification worked out (and I don't think I will ever see both in my life time and I'm not sure about my kids either) I will galdly take the second.
Kind regards
Steve
Agent, do you think that the appendix is just such a useless organ? runningdoc.
"It seems like you are attempting to connect believing in God with all things ignorant."
No, just those who only and so swiftly appeal to the supernatural to explain complex things. For some, if X is complex they attempt to really understand what causes X, others don't opt for such a difficult path and instead usurp it with (no offence) 'god did it'. such a supernatural explanation doesn't really reveal instrinsically valuable knowledge, so it's basically self defeating as it creates a false intellectual dead end. Look, I couldn't really care less if god ism in the abstract, the creator of all things, the notion doesn't personally bother me a bit. What I am concerned with is what actually is and what is verifiable and how science can show what is with respect to how, should god exist, he/she/it made or indirectly caused the universe. I don't want empty rhetoric like 'he spoke'. Such a quip lacks any geniune details on the actual details of it that it makes one second guess its veracity, but that is another matter.
'"One human organ that is poorly designed and without purpose?"
Dude, I gave you a Wiki page with dozens, and a vid wth dozens, pick one from and come back. Note, I didn't say 'only the human body' I said all things, as in in the abstract, as after all that is what he being credited for right? It's not logical to simply only look a humans and nothing else. Pick the Panda's Thumbs for all I care, there is non optimal design for ya. So rationalize it for us.
'does it make gravity work any differently, than if it was designed by a randomly directed bang? "
Nope not really, if its the same end result, than same is same. Again, I want details, substance, not rhetori of 'thou spoke'. thou spoke leaves a little too much to the imagination as far as details are concerned.
star2, they don't have a fixed login like here, so you can dynamically change at will, though this is, for ovbious reasons self defeating. I use either just 'chad' or another, but not agentorange. you know my writing style Star, you'll probably be able to pick it out.
Agent, It seems like you are attempting to connect believing in God with all things ignorant. Just because one believes in God does not mean you wouldnt study physics and engineering and build aircraft engines. My Christian friends and sonin law at Rolls Royce build them everyday.
Again, I really just one example from you. One human organ that is poorly designed and without purpose?
By the way, how do you know that God didnt create gravity? And if HE did (I do think He did), does it make gravity work any differently, than if it was designed by a randomly directed bang? So a person who believes in God could study and describe gravity and arrive at very profound observations? I think that was Newton. He did pretty well for the times.
runningdoc
I am too lazy to go listing things, but here are some. Some were mentioned from that earlier youtube vid, but if you lack the bandwidth then I understand. And this is for the most part only the human body, it doesn't cover other species, or cosmology or other such non optimal designs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
I blog on a site 'Panda's Thumb' all the time which is related to evolutionary biology and the Panda's Thumbs are such an example of less than ideal design. you can go there and find past archived articles, not just for sub optimel designed organs.
“we still do not know what gravity is or why it works the way it does”
We don’t know everything (yet) about Gravity, but that’s not to say what we actually do know can’t be used for the betterment of humanity. See the difference there? B/c we understand gravity ‘enough’ we can create 21st centuary planes for transporting goods and people across long distances which otherwise would take much longer. This allows us to transport food to otherwise malnourished nations. Imagine trying to help those after a major Hurricane like the one in Myanmar without the aid of planes? Forget it.
B/c of our ‘just enough’ understanding of gravity we were able to land men on the Moon and within some decades it will be Mars and hopefully we will be also colonizing Mars. Why else are we here but to learn about our Universe and understand it to our fullest potential to our own benefit? What does decrying by fiat 'god made gravity' actually acomplish for us? It explains nothing, no details on how, why, or what processes he used to create it. So what is the instrinsic value in such a premise? might as well say 'fairies are responsble for gravity and 'lepreachaun are responsible for rainbows'.
Hey agent, Which organ is lamely designed in our human bodies? I dont need a you tube tutorial here, I just want to know which one of our organs you are convinced could have been designed better and why? runningdoc
Agent, the only problem with your non-lame answer on gravity is that even after all the human brillaince of Einstein, we still do not know what gravity is or why it works the way it does.
It really is a lot to say when you describe creation as a lame "god did it answer." The most profound words ever spoken and written are in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created.....
That gives us a platform to look at the universe and understand the optic chiasm and steropsis.
runningdoc
“It really doesnt answer the questionfor you to simply say that anyone who sees God creating does so becaues they are ignorant. It”
No, I am saying those who so swiftly opt for the super natural explanation (god did it!) to anything we don’t yet fully understand are playing the old ‘god of gaps’ argument. ‘ I don’t know X and nor will anyone in the future, thus god did it’. That is the essential premise of god of the gaps, it assumes no one will ever find a natural explanation, and the past has shown time and time again when people, even the most noble of scientists, have so easily opted for the supernatural explanation, have in the end been shown to be wrong time and time again. When will we use a humanity finally get over our obsession with trying to fill X with a supernatural instead of actually trying to figure X out with a natural explanation? -
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
The argument for the eye for you is that it is an object of perfect design personified by a personal loving creator, god. Well, fine, however the eye or many organs for that matter are hardly optimally designed. Good design? Sure. Absolutely perfect though, the express design of only a creator? Put it all into perspective here, something’s we do find exhibit genuine good design, even seemingly benevolent design, but in the abstract it doesn’t quite seem so.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
“How do you know that there is no God?”
Easy, I don’t.
“How do you KNOW there is no God who created the water molecule and the light that passes through it?”
Well it seems through our understanding using science that indeed that no supernatural agents are actively controlling rainbows, water drops or light directly. Injecting the supernatural into the scientific method automatically negates the point of even testing as one could never be quite sure the results were legit.
" your mind is too limited to understand how God made anything."
Riiight star, all the while all I ever hear from you is spouting of verses over and over, as if they actually contained details on the how such things work. So Star, you said God created Gravity, well done nice decry by fiat, so, how did he do it? What are the underlying details on how he/she/it accomplished it? You said ‘he spoke’, but spoke what exactly, and how did this result in gravity at all?
What is the INTRINCIS VALUE to humanities knowledge on such a premise? How does usurping 'god did it' help humanity to understand the mechanics of gravity exactly? See the problem there star? Now consider how Newton, Einstein and others didn't so quickly appeal to the lame answer of 'god did it' and actually wanted to understand the mechanics behind it and how this knowledge and its fruit have been used for humanity in past 100 years or so.
Agent, two problems with your answer
You can see god whereever you want, if you're generally ignorant on how such things work naturally.
First, I am not ignorant of how the optic chiasm works or the elegant design that gives us stereopsis.
It really doesnt answer the questionfor you to simply say that anyone who sees God creating does so becaues they are ignorant. It becomes your obligation to say how you know the optic chiasm was not designed.
KNOW is the operative word. You used it too.
How do you know that there is no God? Excuse me, I know you said There is no God pulling the strings. How do you KNOW there is no God who created the water molecule and the light that passes through it? AFter all, Those are famous words in Genesis, LET THER BE LIGHT.
I say what I know about life because God has revealed HImself to man in the Bible.
You mind remind of the poem Ronald Reagan used to quote about those who slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.
Somehow, I think you must be straining at the bonds of life to touch the face of Darwin.
If I choose to believe that God created and see that creation in the Circle of Willis, or the human eye, or heart, it does not mean that I am ignorant and that you are a genius because you want to see Darwin.
The question is who will you believe. Who will you worship, the creature or the creator?
runningdoc
agentorange, your mind is too limited to understand how God made anything. At best, all you can hope to understand is how the laws of nature work and even that is limited.
"God created them buddy"
Sorry for you, but that explanation isn't a scientific one as its not falsifiable. Try again. Saying 'god made it that way' or 'made created it as so' explains nothing, it explains none of the details o n HOW such a process works and what are the mechanisms which control it. This is why 'god made it that way' is a totally intellectual dead end as it produces no knew variable knowledge which we as humanity can then use.
Star, even if the premise 'god created them' (indirectly or not) is absolutely 100% true in the abstract, it still produces zero new knowledge which we as humanity can then use for our own good. You wouldn't honestly think a god would give you a brain only to not use it in this manner and yet you soldier on for such non answers like 'god made it that way'?
Here we go again.....
Sure, science can tell us what makes a rainbow and how. All the while, it is unable to tell us how the earth,moon,sun,stars, and so on came into existance in the first place for there to be a rainbow for science to explain.No matter how well we understand how nature works and why, it still had to get here somehow. There was a beginning that science can not explain
And by the way, how are you doing this evening aox? missed ya last week.
agentorange
Who do you think created gravity? Who do you think created all the laws of nature? God created them buddy. There is no natural explanation for why the universe and all that it contains is the way it is because God spoke them into existence from nothing and He created laws to control what He created.
One day agentorange, one day .......you will know ....
mathetes
“When was it proven that the bacterial flagellum evolved? And how was that proven?”
9 part series, about 1 ½ hours long, but you’ll learn something in the end. Miller addresses both the Flagellum and the Blood Clotting Cascade and describes how they are not in fact IC systems. http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
"What is the "god of the gaps."
Google it, you'd find plenty of examples to better understand the arguement. Essentially, it's when X can't be currently explained, some (hint hint) too quickly opt for the supernatural as a means to explain X, but as its been show in the past and still now, using that as a explanation is not only not logical, but not theologically satisfying as it slowly erodes the areas one can put god into to give credit to his work. It was once reasoned that the orbits of planets was directly contolled by the supernatural acts of god, only to later find out it wasn't, it instead was the result of good ol Gravity.
"When I look at the optic chiasm, I see it in the light of scripture. When you look at a flagellum you interpret in the light of Darwin"
You can see god whereever you want, if you're generally ignorant on how such things work naturally. To a laymen the formation and order of a rainbox can be viewed as an express instance of gods creation, but we know better. We know there is no god doing string pulling, it's just the light refracting off of the water, like how light passes through a prism. Now the flaggelum is complex, but not Irreducible Complex, as shown by Ken Miller and other bilogists. In fact, all the instances of IC which Behe has so far listed have been shown to have natural origins and explanations, all by evolutionary pathways.
Jdiogenes and Steve H20, What is the "god of the gaps." I am not trying to put God anyplace that He has not already placed Himself. John said in his gospel chapter 1:3, All things were made by Him and without him was not anything made that was made.
In Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all
things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
When the Bible says that he created all things and by him all things hold together, it means it.
So, When I look at the optic chiasm, I see it in the light of scripture. When you look at a flagellum you interpret in the light of Darwin.
I choose God. I choose His word. I find it reliable, which is more than I can say for the shifting sands of religious science.
It is not enough to say that you think it might be evolution that made that flagellum. To be fact you must be able to say that you know it. Do you absolutely know it?
I know the optic chiasm could not have happened by random mutation. I know that God said in His word that He made it. A God who says He designed it seems much more plausible than a random directive process.
runningdoc
Prophet - No one is claiming evolution is perfect. There are questions and weaknesses but those questions and weaknesses are much too complex and minute for elementary and high school biology students to learn about. They're probably too complex for even freshman level college biology courses.
You're questions only show your bias and ignorance of the subject.
Thank you CP for restoring the posts.
"Darwinists in Texas are seeking to remove a science standard that requires schools to teach both the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution."
What are Darwinists trying to hide? If evolution is so perfect, what's to be afraid of?
I wish people would have respect for others who aren't even involved in the flagging campains at all. I go off for a weekend vacation and all our earlier discussions from Friday prior are all needlessly flagged......why? Have you no dignitiy?
It would seem that someone is so insecure in their view that they can tolerate no discussion of the issue by anyone else.
Well I guess the optic Chiasm must have made someone set their hair on fire. Are these message boards supposed to operate like chat rooms or are we supposed to simply comment on the articles? runningdoc.
It would seem that some evolutionist has been here deleting all the posts.
No surprise that these folks don't want issues regarding their pet theory discussed openly.
Good call (jj)diogenes
What has occured with the god of the gaps is that in the past 250 years they have gone from the "great" god who guides the universe etc... to the god who can be found in the the bacterial flagellum. The god of the gaps has become very tiny. and has been pushed to the margins.
jjdiogenes,
Re: "the bacterial flagellum. It was show to be an excellent example of evolution in action, not intelligent design."
When was it proven that the bacterial flagellum evolved? And how was that proven?
runningdoc and steve - "who was the Greek looking for an honest man?" I'll give you a hint, take a look at my moniker, now scratch off the "jj" and you're on your way.
runningdoc: I'm not sure where I stand on god and christianity but I can tell you that if there is a god, he is not hiding in the gaps and it is very dangerous for you to put him there with your suggestions that different systems have to be designed because they couldn't possibly have evolved. Just take a look at Behe's crowning example, the bacterial flagellum. It was show to be an excellent example of evolution in action, not intelligent design. Just be careful.
Yes, I can fully understand why you think that looks like design.
Kind regards
Steve
SteveH2o Learn from you betters? do I detect sarcasm here? :-) Maybe you already know about diogenes and the reason behind the optic chiasm? If you dont
Diogenes was the man with the lamp in Greek history. I found it on ask.com
If you really want to know about the optic chiasm.
The significance of the wiring of the retina/optic nerve of each eye would indicate forethought and a very elegant design for a specific purpose.
The outside halves of the both eyes send their information to the same side of the brain in the lateral portion of both optic nerves.(ipsilateral) The inside halves of both retinas are wired to send their images to the opposite side of the brain and they cross in the optic chiasm.(contralateral) This means that the left side of the brain gets the left eye lateral half image and the medial right eye half image. It works in the oppossite way for the right side of the brain. What this does is give you an integrated an unimterrupted 140* view of what is in front of you. It also takes the nose mostly out of the image when you look straight ahead. It allows integration of the images. Steropsis is the ability of the brain to take the differences in distance that both eyes see and then give you a the sense of how far away things are.
The ability to see in 3D is based in the wiring. I can remember going to cinerama movies when I was a kid. They had three screens and there was always an ackward line in between them that distorted the picture as the actor passed through them. We actually look at a panorama with no distortion. It required a human designer to make cinerama.
The design demands a designer. It is complex. It has purpose. The odds of it happening by accident are out at 1X 10 to the 23rd I think. And remember the odds of getting one step towards the final design are the same everytime you start the process. Trying a million times does not reduce the odds.
The human eye is certainly different than the eagle, but not better. We dont fly on our own and we dont need to see mice from 1000 feet up. The design would then be different.
Nobody thinks the big images scratched in the ground in South America happened by accident. They also dont believe the pyramids raised themselves.
Hope this doesnt make anyone want to set their hair on fire. '
runningdoc
Texas is becoming a mess, with all these regulaltions against creation and science.
Where is Dallas Theological Seminary ? Should they not be lobbying for creation in the schools of Texas ?
So, do you understand why the outside half of the retina is wired ipsilaterally and the medial half is wired contralaterally?
No, but I'm always willing to learn something new from my betters, why don't you tell me.....
Who was the Greek who went around with the lantern looking for an honest man?
You tell me....
Steve
Steveh20 I didnt not see your 1;17 post. At last someone who knows what the optic chiasm is and its significance. So, do you understand why the outside half of the retina is wired ipsilaterally and the medial half is wired contralaterally?
Who was the Greek who went around with the lantern looking for an honest man? I have finally found someone who knows something about the optic chiasm :-) runnigdoc
Sounds like all the state of Texas wants is to use the scientific method to look at what is taught. So, why do the Darwinists have a problem with that? Oh, that's right. Evolution doesn't hold up to scientific standards. :-(
This only proves what many of us have said all along. Flagging everything doesn't chane that now does it?
runningdoc - thanks for your comments. They're great!
Psalm 14:1-4
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
ERV and Steveh20 Not mad at all, just wasting good time answering these posts. :-)
Neither of you have explained the significance of the optic chiasm yet. Do you understand it?
Christians dont believe in a magical creator. They believe in the creator God who revealed Himself to us in person and in the scriptures.
I suggest that both of you sit down and write out some religious evilutionary pamplets and go find a street corner and bullhorn and preach your gospel there! The classroom is no place for fairy tales like evolution.
That is mostly what you just said to Christians.
Hope that doesnt make you want to set your hair on fire. runningdoc
I have never designed an eye to the best of my knowledge also I've never built a car but I still have opinions about which ones are good and bad etc... All I'm doing is pointing out that if the eye is designed then it has, how shall we put it, design faults.
You sound angry?
Kind regards
Steve
Hey Steveh20, I think that your comment can best be described as hubris. How many eyes have you designed? How would you have designed them? What in the world makes you think you could do better? Do you understand the function and importance of the optic Chiasm and things like stereopsis? I think if you did, humility would be present. It is hard for to kick against the goads. We are fearfully and wonderfully made! The eye is an elegant design particularly when compared to current optics. runningdoc
Actually ,if the eye is designed, then the designer did a very poor job, there are things about it that could be much better.
Hey agentorgangex, I just wondered if you noticed that yoko ono lost her lawsuit against Ben Stein. I guess it was perfectly legal under fair use to use 10seconds of imagine after all. Anything else that you are absolutely sure of that might be wrong? Like the elegant design and importance of the optic nerve decussation?
A while back I suggested that you might read though the Bible before you make your mind up about many important things and you wondered where you might start. So I would suggest you start in the gospel of John. If you are really interested, pray and ask God to show you his truth out of it.
Hope this doesn't cause you to set you hair on fire.
runningdoc
agentorangex is all about stirring up trouble. never has anything new to say, only wants to bash Christians. terrified of the One True God and rightfully so.
Cytocop, Thanks for your posts demonstrating that despite claims to the contrary on both extremes of this issue you can be both reverent and rational, scientific and theistic, and that there is in fact no conflict between these complementary understandings of our universe and ourselves.
This may already have been commented on but in reading the article I thought it was a telling phrase when one of the board members stated "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions." While this might be described as a slip of the tongue I believe such slips tend to demonstrate either the true agenda/motivation of persons or their fundamental ignorance of the issue they are addressing.
Kboswell, I didn't know it was a debate; I've enjoyed conversing with you. I don't mind being challenged, it's cerebral exercise. I believe in God too, the creator of science, atoms, molecules, cells, the works - and nothing will change that either. God bless you too, and Shabbat Shalom.
Cytocop,
Nope, I'm done. I believe in God, and nothing will change that. I do HIGHLY respect both the work you do and aox's knowledge in the scientific field. It has been a pleasure debating with the two of you. God bless, and good night.
kboswell, to answer your question, please refer to my earlier post: Why not teach intelligent design in Philosophy class or Religion class since it better addresses those disciplines.
I couldn't say anything better than Agentorangex already has, so I'm not going to repeat him/her.
As a cytotechnologist, my job is to analyze the cells on pap smears. My entire profession is built on cell theory. If you want to call cell theory, "just" a theory (not a fact), fine. But then, using your logic, you'd have to doubt the existence of malignancy. Is this where things are going?
agentorangex,
Anyone ever told you that you were too smart for your own good? lol
"Until however, science can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, it shouldn't be taught as factual.Would you at least be in somewhat agreement with that? "
Absolutely not. Science is the most valuable knowledge based tool we have, it's the pillar of our very civilization. Without science we'd be like most of the impoversed world. Look at all the things you're using right now, directly derived from the fruits for science! Nothing in science theories are ever 'absolutely 100% certian without a shadow of a doubt'. Newtonian gravity was the way gravity was understood in that era and until Einstein came along to show how it wasn't exaclty correct, it was the still the best, most accurate explanation of its time, nothing could even close in rivaling its accuracy for celestial objects and still its not correct today, most of it was largely correct, it was only wrong on some of the underlying details. Einstiein didn't destroy gravity, he expanded upon it.
We are no more certain with all the aspectes of gravitational theory than we are over evolutionary theory or other theories for that matter, they are both and all partially tentaive in some minor respect, contigent upon more future testing and evidence which could, hypothetically, at any time, over turn previous hypothesises or experiments. The key however is with science a give theory is tested every time an experiment is run and under this critiqeue we understand it more and it becomes more affirmed as epistomological truth. Every time the tests pass, one could say we become more assured X = true with regard to a give science theory. Ever application, every test further reaffirms its already holding model.
You're only adovcating not teaching evolutionary theory b/c it possibly conflicts with your theoloogical view. you have no objection to teachign gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, quantum theory, atomic matter theory, etc. as none of these theories conflict with your theology, that in the end is the crux for you evolution is so utterly hated.
In science, it's a form of reductionism working in backwards falsifiable manner, excluding and elimating bad, wrong, invalid or inadequeate facts and uses supported facts, observations to build upon further knowledge. Science is setup with a desire to understand under these principles.
Cytocop,
I know scientists don't keep anyone from attending church. Our children have to go to school though. Using your same logic, if say the big bang theory can't be proven, then why waste our tax money teaching it?
agentorangex
You just can't let it go can you? You don't know it all no matter how bad you want to. I do agree that science and religeon should keep their perspective places. Until however, science can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, it shouldn't be taught as factual.Would you at least be in somewhat agreement with that?
Kboswell wrote: "the scientific method can neither prove or disprove God."
An astute point, kboswell, which is what I had already said.
Since science does not address the Supernatural, the question becomes: Why would parents want their children's valuable time (and their valuable tax dollars) wasted trying to prove/disprove that which can't? Why not just send their kids to church? Nobody - not even SCIENTISTS! - are barring anyone from attending church/synagogue/mosque/etc; a fact creationists conveniently refuse to admit.
It's a valid question nobody seems to want to address.
"Either you put your trust in men (scientists,biologists,etc.) or you put your trust in God. "
Just WHO do you think penned the bible? Inspired or not, ultimately like all other books they are penned by the same men, falliable men, men with political intentions however you cut it up.
"the scientific method can neither prove or disprove God"
That's b/c the scientific method doesn't and can't investigate and verify the supernatural, it's only usefull for the natural, physicaly, material based world, the one we know with the highest level of certainty exists. What is the level of certainty regarding the supernatural let alone supernatural world?
It's not about swaying anyone, it's about teaching science as science and leaving religion as religion, leave them in their own domains and everything is fine. As soon as you we try to apply science to explain the supernatural it doesn't and can't work, and ID/neo-creationism isn't much for science either, it's more like quasi-philosophy and as such can't be taught as verifiable science either.
This my friends, comes down to a personal choice. Just like everything else on these boards it seems. Either you put your trust in men (scientists,biologists,etc.) or you put your trust in God. I think it is perfectly clear from all the responses that no one is going to be swayed from there perspective camps. As steveH20 said way below, the scientific method can neither prove or disprove God. This argument is kind of like tic-tac-toe. If you know how to play it's a draw every time.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven."
Notice Mr Bradley does not share with us what his definition is of a scientific theory.
"Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Anytime I've heard the phrase "jump to conclusions" used, has always been in the context of irrational, emotional, hasty decisions which turned out to be inaccurate. Mr. Bradley's words, therefore, speak for themselves.
Do any of these creationists know what the definition of a scientific theory is? Have they ever taken Biology 101? Have they ever read a textbook in evolution and genetics? From what I've seen, I doubt the answer to any of these questions is Yes.
FYI (since once this thing passes, your school will NOT teach it to you):
#1. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life. It does not explain the ORIGIN of life.
#2. Science is the study of the NATURAL world. It is not the study of the SUPERNATURAL world.
So, to teach intelligent design does make sense in a Philosophy or World Religions class. It does not make sense in a SCIENCE class as it is comparing apples and oranges. You might as well teach GERMAN or PHYS ED in a science class as to teach so-called "intelligent design."
Furthermore, if creationists are going to be considered scientists, I see no logical reason why astrologers shouldn't be called astronomers and alchemists chemists.
I recommend readers listen to the review of Ben Stein's silly movie "Expelled" that can be found on the Inner Side radio program. Go here:
http://acksisofevil.org/innerside.html
Scroll down and look for:
180: Ben Stein's EXPELLED: No Intelligence Required, Pt 1.
and
181: Part 2.
Brilliant and funny as all get out. And - fasten your seat belts - you might even learn something.
Enjoy, and thank you.
I wonder how Hovind is doing in prison. He sure was a wacko. He had this crazy idea that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. Really. He was really that insane.
Karl, now I get it. Your comments were spam. You were advertising your website, which I noticed is full of ignorance and dishonesty. Good luck with your worthless business.
Karl, you were a math teacher and you taught a science lesson? Why didn't you stick with what you know? It's not fair to any student to have a science teacher who knows nothing about science, and it's obvious you don't even know what science is (Hint - Intelligent Magic is not scientific).
I am a I am a recently retired public school mathematics teacher and live near Charleston, WV. I have a BS in education and an MA in school administration and was an educator (K-9--including 4 years as a principal) for 35 years. During the last half-dozen years of my career I taught a lesson that was devastating to Darwinism and provided students with facts that point toward Intelligent Design.
Mathematics (and biology) eliminate(s) evolution.
See: http://www.josephmastropaolo.com/.
Dear: agentorangex
I asked if you could answer them. Good god is not what I was looking for.
Thanks anyway..
Yep, no centre to the universe, on the large scale its homogenous and isotropic. Every galaxy is moving away from each other the only exception being in some local clusters due to gravitational affects etc... i.e the Milky way and Andromeda.
Flagged myself
bpeal,
Good god, you creationists still use those? I wonder if any of those are on the list Ken Ham's creationist site Answers in Genesis (AIG) have already delcared as 'arguements we think you shouldn't use'.....?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
“the sun is the center of the universe - not the earth, etc.”
Who said that? Who said our star is smack-dab in the middle of the entire universe?
Somebody needs to repeat first grade.
“Clean out your garage with absolutely nothing in it and let's come back in 10 million years and see if a Merceds has evolved.”
Uh oh, spaghetti oooos. Its seems ol jsamples has missed the profound difference in non living systems like watches, paintings, cars, as compared with living systems like people which reproduce on their own. The reason a car can’t evolve is b/c it doesn’t’ undergo many of the same properties living systems do. Namely, car’s (and other non living objects) don’t reproduce on their own, they don’t undergo attrition, predation and habitat loss, they don’t have per generation variations (genetic mutations), these and other properties allow for living systems to fall under NATURAL SELECTION and thus evolution.
“which evolved first, the mouth, teeth, digestive tract, stomach, intestines, or the food source?”
If you picked up a book you’d see the oldest life forms didn’t have mouths, let alone teeth. The earliest chordates (primitive vertebrates) didn’t have jaws, but did have primitive holes which functioned as a mouth for ingesting food. The first more complex organisms prior to these chordates had digestive systems.
‘Why would it even have to evolve?”
No, the more correct question is, ‘why WOULDN’T it have evolved. Eye’s are photo receptive lens, which allow a species to better understand its environment. Some eyes are quite complex, while others in the animal kingdom are nothing more than a simply pin hole or photo receptive cell able to distinguish light concentration in an environment. Your next question would then be’ well, what good is eve such a nominal ½ an eye’ The answer is simpler than you’d think. Even a ½ functioning, quasi pin hole eye, is still better than simply no eye at all, right? And this is why such a sensory organ developed.
“Why have we not "evolved" past 7 days in a week?”
Um, this makes no sense at all, please reiterate what you ment.
“the sun is the center of the universe - not the earth, etc.”
Actually neither the sun (Sol) nor the Earth are the center of the universe heck or milky way galaxy isn’t the center either, look it up. Steve should know this too.
“Why would this be the oldest living organism on earth if earth is millions of years old?’
Billions, Billions, with a ‘B’, not millions, and its 4.6 billion.
Whoops!! Sorry that should be outer core not inner...
HI bp
Awful lot of questions you pose, I'll just answer one though..
The magnetic field of the Earth has weakened resulting in a polarity change many many times in the Earths long history. We know this because of the marine magnectic anomolies found either side of constructive plate boundaries ( better known as Mid Ocen Ridges), these anomolies record each polarity change, they are really fascinating. Current theory is that these events occur due to changes in currents etc..within the liquid inner core where the magnectic field of the Earth is produced.
Geology, don't you just love it, I do!!
Kind regards
Steve
Well, well, now!
This story just destroys any benefit-of-the-doubt that I may have accorded evolutionists when they profess that they "only want scientce" to be presented in classrooms.
It would seem that what they've really wanted all along, is evolutionary dogma presented in a vacuum and with no potential exposure to critical analysis.
Such demands generally have more in common with the tactics of a con man.
In their over-eagerness to promulgate their worldview, they've let slip their true colors.
You gotta laugh.
kboswell,
No, you spoke your peace and your mind, and can't fault you for that. Don’t worry about it, forgiven. We have many theories which collectively explain how the many aspects of our universe all work.
‘You even said yourself that scientists have no clue how or what caused the big bang’
I think you’re jumping the gun a bit and protest too much. Only a few centuries ago we hadn’t the foggiest clue to how gravity worked and had very little understanding to many things like modern medicine or geology, cosmology and so on. All the knowledge gained from these fields of science doesn’t in any way negate god, or the need for one. These fields of knowledge simply give us a reductionism view of how the universe truly is by virtue of deep inspection and continual testing. Simply b/c we don’t fully understand all aspects of something does it make logical to simply appeal to the supernatural to make sense of it all? Especially considering all of humanities recent success with natural answers, to appeal to supernatural ones is self defeating in acquiring actual, verifiable knowledge.
Yes I have opened and actually read many books claiming evolution was the answer. I have a Bachelors in Nursing = RN in the medical field and just the anatomy of the human eye is so complex that there is no way that I can believe that given enough time we evolved. I am not attacking you guys for your belief, I respect it, but this accusing individuals for believing in God and creationism as a weakness or a crutch, I say give me two crutches.
I have one case to make and it is can you explain these questions (facts).
Explain the World Population
The population of the planet in 1985 was: 5 billion
in 1977: 4 billion
in 1900: 1 billion
in Jesus’ day: 1/4 billion
If man has been here for 3 million years, as scientist claim, the current population should be 150,000 people per square inch!!
Explain the Sun= The sun burns up approximately 5 million tons of "fuel" per second. As it burns it’s shrinking. Which means it use to be bigger than it is now. And heavier... meaning heavier gravity. If the earth was even 20 to 40 million years old (scientists claim it is much older than that), the sun would have been touching the earth! (talk about hot!). Far too hot to support any life whatsoever.
Explain the earth’s magnetic field = The magnetic field around the earth is getting weaker. This means it used to be stronger.
If we go back millions of years, the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.
Also, the declining magnetic field explains why carbon dating is not accurate. More carbon-14 is being made now than 5,000 years ago.
Explain the earth rotation speed = The earth spins at a speed of over 1,000 mph., but is slowing down, approximately one thousandth of a second per day, or 1 second per 10 months. This means the earth used to spin faster. If the earth is millions of years old it would have been spinning much too fast to support live (extreme gravity).
Biblical teaching - 4,400 years ago there was a total worldwide flood, killing all animals, people, plant life, etc. (except those in the Ark.). All the living matter would have been covered by immense layers of mud. The layers of mud / water could easily provide enough pressure to in time create the pockets of oil we now find. And the fact that this only occurs a few thousand years ago, stands up well to the dilemma mentioned above.
Explain The Bristle Cone Pine Tree The oldest living organism yet found on earth is the Bristle Cone Pine Tree. It has been dated to be 4,300 years old.
Why would this be the oldest living organism on earth if earth is millions of years old?
Growth rate average for the Great Corral Reef places its age at approximately 4,200 years old. Why isn’t it bigger if the earth is millions of years old?
Explain the Oceans = The salt in the oceans is ever increasing. Why then are they only 3.6% salt if millions of years old?
Seems many people need to open their Science books. Science provides many more examples of a creation and intelligent design that it ever will for evolution. No true Physicist will ever bow to the evolution myth because it absolutely defies provable laws. Clean out your garage with absolutely nothing in it and let's come back in 10 million years and see if a Merceds has evolved. Absolutely absurd - not going to happen. Yet people are deceived into believing that much more complicated things than a Mercedes just happened over similar timeframes.
Answer some simple questions - which evolved first, the mouth, teeth, digestive tract, stomach, intestines, or the food source? The eyeball itself is an absolute phenomenon. Why would it even have to evolve?
Why are there no 2 celled organisms? There are single celled organisms and then organisms with millions of cells but no 2 celled organisms. What happened here? What faith it must take to believe these myths!
Why have we not "evolved" past 7 days in a week? Makes no sense at all!
Men have believed many false things throughout history yet the Bible has been rock-solid and without flaw since day one. Just a few examples - the world is round, all matter is composed of small particles that cannot be seen, the life is in the blood, the sun is the center of the universe - not the earth, etc.
Then there is the whole prophetic side that cannot be denied. Men are proven wrong every day but the Bible has not missed one prophecy.
What about the whole conscience thing? Conscience - with knowledge. You do not have to teach a small child to steal or lie - it is innate behavior - just like the Bible says - they are born with it. You feel guilty when you tell a lie or steal, just as the Bible says. This is not learned behavior. If evolution were plausible, why would anyone feel guilty or wrong? They could just fall back on the "I'm evolving at my own pace" mentality. The reality is that God has put a conscience in each of us and we know without a shadow of a doubt when we lie, steal or cheat. Our pride is what keeps us from bowing before our Creator and repenting. How great the faith it takes to believe evolution over God!
Hello kboswell
You are quite right, the scientific method cannot ,andwill never, be able to disprove OR prove the existence of God or Gods.
Well done
Kind regards
Steve
agentorangex
Let me apologize for my last post. I got a little emotional.
tpique1, let's hear em smarty pants.
Until another theory can adequately explain what occurred prior to its inception, then yes
theory after theory after theory. It's still speculation that can not be "proven" or replicated by the god you worship.(science) You even said yourself that scientists have no clue how or what caused the big bang. You want to discredit God, then you tell me how it started. Until then your theories are truly meaningless. As God said to Job "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Declare if thou hast understanding" I truly do respect your intelligence in the scientific part of this debate, but science never has or never will disprove the existance of God. His creation is a testimony of Himself.
"as time and time again that explanation when used in the past has shown to be wrong leaving a theologically empty feeling as one searches for the usefulness of a creator as science would continually strip away all the possible jobs he could of filled"
lol, that's funny. If He hadn't created it,we wouldn't be here arguing about it.
Evolution has weaknesses? Who new?
Dear: agentorangex
It seems you are educated above your intelligence.
What are you so affraid of? There is no proof of evolution; however, I truely admire your faith in believing that we evolved from a rock.
>"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley
Strictly speaking, Evolution is not a theory, since it never has been repeated in controlled laboratory environment. This is a better assessment, and should be taught as such -
“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionquotes.html
Note, the BB theory doesn't describe how, or where, or what caused it to occur
Could that be considered a gap from the very beginning?
2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
agentorangex
Do you believe in the "Big bang theory"?
The anonymous creationist hiding behind the username "crc" writes: "Numerous great scientific contributors who were not creationists have major problems with Darwinism..."
Is this referring to the Dishonesty Institute's infamous list of 704 Scientists Who Are Dissenters From Darwinism? That bogus list constitutes less than 0.001 per cent of all scientists, who are neither "numerous" nor "great."
"Numerous great scientific contributors who were not creationists have major problems with Darwinism,"
Yup, lets here WHO they are and what their actual substantial arguements are.
Anytime a group wants to "hide" something you have the perfect reason to find out why. With evolution that "hiding" will never end. Numerous great scientific contributors who were not creationists have major problems with Darwinism, that should say something to the less informed.
THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
For an interview, please contact author@questforright.com
Furthermore, being a Texas resident I was glad to learn both sides of the story. I hope that once my daughter gets to school she will recieve the same education.
Regardless of if they want to push ID or Creationism into school the pros and cons should be taught. Otherwise we are just being brainwashed in a sense by the school system. I can't tell you how many things I got to re-learn once I got to college because of biased school curriculum. If we truely want our children to think critically we need to view all sides of science. Just because evolution is accepted among many scientists doesn't mean it's truth. There could be thousands of ways we got here just because this may have the most backing does not mean in anyway that it's the only, or even correct one.