Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Wed, Oct. 08 2008 11:25 AM EDT

Scientist Coalition Accused of 'Suppressing' Evidence Against Darwinism

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

While the 21st Century Science Coalition may sound like it’s on the cutting edge of scientific innovation, at least one of its critics argues otherwise.

“The 21st Century Science Coalition has the wrong name,” says Dr. John G. West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“It should be dubbed the ‘19th Century Science Coalition,’ because it wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century by suppressing recent scientific evidence challenging Darwinism from fields like biochemistry, bioinformatics, microbiology, and paleontology,” he told The Christian Post in response to the coalition’s recruitment of more than 800 supporters from the scientific community in Texas.

Last week, the 21st Century Science Coalition warned the State Board of Education not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools, worried that social conservatives on the 15-member board will insist that public schools teach the "weaknesses of evolution." The board plans to adopt new science curriculum standards next year.

Under the 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."

The 21st Century Science Coalition alleges, however, that the references to “strengths and weaknesses” have been used by politicians “to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.”

Such explanations include concepts like Intelligent Design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they could not have come about randomly but point to an intelligent designer.

To date, over 800 scientists in Texas have signed the coalition’s statement to “encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses.’”

“A strong science curriculum is an essential part of a 21st-century education and should be based on established peer-reviewed empirical research,” states the introduction to the statement titled “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools.”

In addition to asserting that scientifically sound curriculum standards must “make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt,” supporters of the statement say standards must “recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship.”

West, however, insists that no one is proposing to teach religion in biology classes in Texas.

“The claim about religion is simply a smoke screen to cover up the effort by Darwinists to impose an ideological litmus test on science education in Texas,” he said.

“What [backers of the current curriculum] want is for students to hear about the scientific (not religious) evidence for and against Darwinism.”

Furthermore, West says Darwinists are the ones who are truly trying to undermine good science education by turning it into a form of indoctrination.

“Examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific explanations and theories is a critical part of good science education,” he insisted. “Science educators disserve students if they fail to introduce them to all of the relevant scientific evidence and help them critically analyze that evidence.”

According to reports, the State Board of Education will begin discussing the proposed new standards this fall and have tentatively set a deadline of March 2009 for final adoption. In 2011, the state is scheduled to adopt new science textbooks, which are created by publishers using the state’s curriculum standards.

In addition to the 21st Century Science Coalition, other critics of the current curriculum include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past. The network is currently spearheading the “Stand Up for Science” campaign, which accuses creationists on the State Board of Education of "working to undermine instruction on evolution in science classes."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To agentorangex, I have to say that you seem to operate out of a picture of Christians that the media has fed you. Many Christian people who have kept their faith in tact after years of college and being out in the real world have dealt with doubts fueled inwardly and outwardly. They have not been able to rest on the teaching of their churches from their younger years. That is not a luxury of being a Christian any longer - though I'll readily admit many attempt to do so - but they are usually the ones who don't dare share their faith any longer, as they don't have any "real" answers for the world around them.

    So much of what else is said above has to do with mechanics of creation. I've read Genesis anew these last few years and have seen that FROM THE SCRIPTURES themselves, long (aka "huge")periods of development are intrinsic to what is being said. The core of the debate is whether it all happened randomly or if it happened by God's guiding hand. There is absolutely no way to provide proof of either - outside of making words and phrases up that lead back upon themselves. Can you observe marco-evolution taking place? No, not outside of laboratory pre-conditions within micro-evolution. But to add up (or perhaps better said, multiply) those odds of all those events taking place to get to man, those are beyond the scope of imagination (yes, I do understand that in random chance evolution, there was no goal, just outcomes). However, it takes a lot of faith to believe that, just as to believe in a God who made it all by His guiding hand. I'll go with the latter, for entirely different reasons:
    The resurrection of Christ and the evidence thereof.
    The evidence of God in my own life and non-random events, no matter how you slice any other knowledge up. In a real sense, I have experienced way too much of God to not realize that randomness is just a dream by those who enjoy being in a Star Trek fantasy land.

    So, don't confuse mechanics of life development with God. The mechanics are incredible, and worth great study and admiration - but greater still the God who put them into place.

  • Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Darwinists suppressing evidence????

    No way!

    I thought it was only us "book burners" who supposedly did that?

    Biochemistry - bioflemishy!, bioinformatics - bioflemformatics!, microbiology - shmicrobiology!, paleontology - shmaileontology!...what's real scientific evidence have to do with this argument anyway? Evidence only gets in the way of truth which gets in the way of the atheist's desire to suppress it.

  • Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mathetes, thank you. Though I fully realize people whom accept evolutionary science are both composed for both theists of many relgions. My position isn't to lead people to or away from God in general, my arguement is in principle how and why some persist to think and for whatever reason, they reject the science of evolution. As noted below with Steiner, when it came time to discuss the evidence of evolution and their objections based on it, rarely do they stick around as at about this time is involves facing the mirror.

  • Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent + pro-science, i'm just passing thru so I may not see your reply; sorry, life is busy. Here's another well-respected scientist who is also a strong Christian: Henry Schaefer. Notice it was evidence which led him to faith in God thru Jesus. You'll find the article at http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14531. Enjoy.

  • Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, my comparison with respect to religions is that at their core and many facets in which they overlap, in their principles of how they derived knowledge (revelation, speaking with god in person), possible after life and such all resort to and require utter faith for them to be believed in at all in the first place. The certitude from all religious followers is typical in which it's always 'their god and their religion' while all others are wrong and this conclusion isn't based on exhaustive research or comparison of supotive evidence by a believer at a young age. No, they are basically offered up on a platter to the religion of their parents and this is overwhelmingly the one they are. At no point do christian parents for example (I could have prefaced it with Jewish or Muslim though) take into consideration that their religion could ever be wrong, and despite this at a very yougn age have their children groomed in their religion. If so confident they are in their religion, why don't they allow the child to reach the age of reason and then teach them their religion? Obviously for good reasons it's best to induct them into the religion immediately, the bible notes at this in reference to this.

    Therefore their youth have no alternatives to logically form their own conclusions.By even objectively reviewing them all, which is rarely if ever done prior to the age by which the believer exerts absolute certitude in their religion, this is really the only way one can justify their position. As with how it is now, they are forced out of fear, partially being ostracized or out of guilt to follow the religion of their time and era. This is for the most part a matter of consequence of where and when they were born. There is no larger factor in determining one's religion, if one takes up religion at all.

  • Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    Hi this post may be to late to reach you on this thread but I just read your sat oct 11 447 post. First based on even a brief review of a few of the current major religions of the world it is pretty clear that despite a few surface similarities they have very significant theological doctrines.
    While I agree with your observation that many times the faith of an individual is based more on familial or other associational ties rather than a critical examination of the doctrine itself I also find that this is not always the case.
    The implication of your statement that all of the religions are essentially the same is true in one respect they all posit that there is more in existence than the natural world. That in fact there is some form of supernatural. If it is this core similarity that you refer to and reject then I would accept you first claim (though not your conclusion)in this modified sense.

  • Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Steiner,

    "although I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence"

    Explain WHY, details.

    "I wish to leave this site noting that I value your input and most of all, I value you as a person;

    First, thanks for responding and I equally appreciate your views.

    Sure, earlier you can rail how evolutionary science is bunk and state the evidence it uses is light, or not substantial enough to logically conclude evolution as a practical and well tested science. But now, with the chips in the middle of the table as it were, do you follow through and support your premise or do you fold? You, like so many others (thanks for confirming roberteaster!) fold. I see this so many times, over and over it makes one want to puke. It's the same old game, but one of these days you need to take the sobering look into the mirror and acknowledge the evidence before making such claims.

    That you're left to review and retort on the validity of the evidence and its implications you'd rather run away (wish to leave) then directly comment is only a sign, as truly everything was fine and peachy until I laid down the evidence, only then did *other* issues arise. I am sorry, but it seems just a little too coincidental...

    "I pray that you know Christ..."

    And I'll hope you read, study, and research evolution. Cheers.

  • Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,

    I wish to leave this site noting that I value your input and most of all, I value you as a person; although I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

    With kids around the house, and a saintly wife whose patience is growing thin as she has a running debate with herself as to whether to take the laptop away or meld it with my skull(as kids cry for attention...)

    ..it simply is more important that I get my other work done...

    cheers.

    I pray that you know Christ...

    Also, if you havent yet, get married and have some kids...they are great to have around...and the wife just as well...

    cheers

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    roberteaster,

    "Evidence is cherry-picked to avoid embarrassment"

    Right, like this kind of evidence?

    ERV's
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

    Human Chromosome 2 fusion
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

    Hominid fossils part 1
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

    part 2
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

    Go ahead, we would all love to hear a refutation of these.

    "methodology is chosen in terms of pre-decided "discoveries."

    The methodology is the very same one used for all other science theories - the Scientific Method.

    "racial slavery and discrimination justified on weight of Survival of the Fittest."

    Uhhhhhh, no. Slavery, racial based or not, has existed far longer than evolutionary theory, so slavery was never predicated on evolutionary theory, it existed 1000's of years prior to it, and really only recently did was it in principle abolished. So your idea doesn't follow.

    "That you so proudly hail Evolution as True Science (knowledge) speaks frighteningly of your view of both the theory and the field."

    Can you provide your evidence for you conclusion that it's not justifiable to define it as science? What specifically based on evidence do you object to?

    If not, and I really doubt you will/can as Steiner too opted not to directly address the evidence for it, but chose to dodge it too and discuss anything but the evidence. It's ok, we both know the evidence is your kryptonite, sleep well. Ta, ta.

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Agentorangex, whether approached from a philosophical, scientific, or historical point of view, Evolution is far more a philosophical ideology than science. Evidence is cherry-picked to avoid embarrassment, findings are released to press prematurely, and methodology is chosen in terms of pre-decided "discoveries." In the meantime we have seen honest scientists, researchers, and educators shunned from their professions, Jews, Gypsies, and other "non-Aryans" exterminated as counter-evolutionary elements, native Australians hunted as museum trophies, and racial slavery and discrimination justified on weight of Survival of the Fittest. Not to mention the millions murdered under Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian Communist regimes based first and foremost on a Darwinian view of mankind. That you so proudly hail Evolution as True Science (knowledge) speaks frighteningly of your view of both the theory and the field. Please. Check your sources. Whether from Astrophysics or microbiology, Darwinism is no more credible than Spontaneous Generation.

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:56 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "Evolution actually militates against the basic premise of science."

    Huh? explain...

    "In fact, evolutionary thinking would probably discourage any thinking/reflection and encourage mutation as a means of advancement for mankind as opposed to design and reflection."

    Well apparently not, evolution as a science has been around for at least 150 years and during this time we have only further ramped up our technology to make use of more knowledge to be more equipped to tackle life issues, this would be in opposition to waiting around for chance mutations to be acted on by natural selection.

    Specifically I am asking for why, perhaps based on evidence, you object to Evolution as Science. What for example would you accept as evidence that the theory is well tested and well supported by evidence? Cheers.

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Steiner,

    'our understanding of science is perfected as we learn more, but I would not call it evolution"

    Perhaps I should rephrase as you misunderstood my question. I am not asking what you think of science in general and if or how it as a process evolves. Rather, I am asking what is your objection to evolution as a science? Cheers

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    agentorangex,

    our understanding of science is perfected as we learn more, but I would not call it evolution.

    Our practice of science is not evolving. We are doing the thinking(designing experiments), testing and perfecting our ideas.

    Evolution actually militates against the basic premise of science. In fact, evolutionary thinking would probably discourage any thinking/reflection and encourage mutation as a means of advancement for mankind as opposed to design and reflection.

  • Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Atheism: Still A Catastrophic Failure

    http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent, and I do agree with you on one point up until I was 19 I knew little if anything about any other religion but catholicism. I mean I heard about other religions but was told that even though they were good people religiously they were wrong. But once I was exposed to not only other religions and most specifically God's plan of salvation did I then first and foremost decide to become a Christian and eventually a Southern Baptist.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer, interesting. Though I think you get my point and you can appreciate it. Had you or others in your family all of sudden become Muslim, Hindui or some other Pagan religion, most in your family wouldn't have liked or preferred that. There is pressure to stick with the religion one was brought up in.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent, I grew up in a home with a very strong catholic mother too include all my relatives on her side and my father was an agnostic who basically left all the religious stuff to my mother to take care of. And yet I became a conservative Southern Baptist, my twin sister a liberal Presbyterian, and my older brother a Unitarian, go figure!!

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steiner,

    "I disagree. This is not a true statement.'

    Sure it is, look at the stats globally, those who are born to parents of X religion at X time in history are more likely by this single circumstance to inherit that particular religion above all others. It has nothing to do with objectively comparing all possible religions at the age of reason as so many kids are taught from an early age that their parents faith is the only true one.

    They likely will know nothing of other religions and thus have nothing to objectively compare to, so they are basically born into it.

    This goes a long way to explaining how we have all these religious groups and they are so heavily concentrated to particular areas globally in which they were first conceived.

    "For there are people that are born in the same circumstances but choose differently.."

    True they do, though this is no doubt the exception and not the norm nor the general rule. Is it, generally unacceptable in most religions to abandon the faith of ones parents. Muslims for instance have some nice laws for apostates, and such laws are enough to generally convince wayward or doubters to not want to give up their faith or religion as the penalty is death. Fear mongering at its best. And coincidentally so did the ancient Jews from the OT have such laws, and the early Church and its torture tactics were likely enough to keep any skeptics at bay.

    Can you say you weren't born to Christian parents and chose to be Christian?

    Again, I will reiterate, why do you reject evolutionary science? Peace.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex - it comes down to a matter of circumstance of where and when one is born with respect to which theology they hold dear or as true. in essence, my rejection is like yours in which you reject the existence or credibility of all the others-

    I disagree. This is not a true statement. For there are people that are born in the same circumstances but choose differently..

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Axiom of Choice


    An important and fundamental axiom in set theory sometimes called Zermelo's axiom of choice. It was formulated by Zermelo in 1904 and states that, given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets. The axiom of choice is related to the first of Hilbert's problems....


    abb3w-

    If we allow each of the disjoint sets to have at least 2 elements, can we conclude that there exists at least one set that contains exactly 2 elements in common with each of the nonempty sets?

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner, My rejection of Christian theology isn't a choice out of not liking the doctrine in contrast to other theological doctrines. It's the end result of deducing that it's not in any significant way different that other theologies and it comes down to a matter of circumstance of where and when one is born with respect to which theology they hold dear or as true. in essence, my rejection is like yours in which you reject the existence or credibility of all the others.

    On a scientific front, why the rejection of evolutionary science?

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,

    When we begin to ask why questions we are switching to theology or philosophy.

    The theological question is this: why do you not wish to emulate Jesus?

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner, Venter and his team are engineering it, so far they just have to get it to 'boot up' to to speak and replication will ensue.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steiner,

    "Man is in the process of producing robotics & programming that not only mimic, but can eventually be described as living."

    Perhaps, but this is contigent on how loosely one defines 'living'. If you define it as simple having the ability to be conciouness, then that would be one way of qualifying it, or in the case of replicating organisms that would be another way of defining 'living' and thus the looser we define it the easier it is to rationalize that we've achieved this.

    "Yet, this is evidence of purpose and creation."

    Oh indeed it is. However, there is a distinction in that our creations which are continually upgraded and modified by our selves and those things (organisms) which are credited as being 'created by God/Intelligent Designer'. The distinction starts in how most view God/ID as being omniscient and omnipotent in wisdom, and therefore based on this we should be able to deduce that all of his/her/its creations aught to be darn near perfect from the very first inception, he need not go into testing and continual revisions of his original product, for if he is, why call him God? We shouldn't expect any supernatural deity with such imagined powers to continually have to try and try again with creation of species and this is exactly what we see in the fossil record with all those extinct species which we're inadequate designs, or those which exhibit less than optimal design.

    If you want to rationalize that his purpose is simply to create sub-optimal living beings than that might work, but it's not very theologically satisfying. On the other hand, if you consider that this ID being is continually having to create whole new species from scratch, this sorta negates the concept of him being omniscient at all.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,

    Isnt Velder the designer, and hence the living being that is in fact forcing life? or has he approached this event objectively, has an inkling that life is about to come about on its own, and has announced it so that everyone can come and look?

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    abb3w,

    I am not implying that hydrogen is the first living thing.

    The analogy is good enough to imply that hydrogen is created by a living being. Just as much as the animation details on a screen are brought about by the skill of the programmer.

    Since the programmer is not part of the code, he would have to design a method to be accessed.

    Outside of this method, one could still know by becoming conscious that order and design are significantly definite attributes of the environment that he lives in... Hence design should be assigned a significant quantity in testing the null hypothesis.

    How is design accounted for in the V.Ly criterion?

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steiner,

    "The fact that Venter is about to synthesize bacteria is evidence that life can originate from nonliving things is open to interpretation."

    Open to interpretation on what grounds? Either it happens or it doesn't, with it happening it would demonstrate that non living matter can be used to form living matter.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    abb3w: Oh, why couldn't Spider-Man ever beat that pesky Wall?!?! . . . sorry, a little attempt at Electric Company humer there

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh: If I needed knowledge on anything God thought I should have then he would give it unto me. He has done this in the past, I am referrencing on what was needed to build his Tabernacle in the Wilderness. All the men needed in every skill was instantly taught to them by God.

    So, when you first picked up a bible, you instantly new how to read it? I had to watch the CTW's Electric Company for a while.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner: "No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose"

    Cool. What purpose, and what evidence?

    steiner: "Please explain what scientific evidence does one investigates to establish purpose."

    Any evidence you want, so long as it yields a model supporting purpose. In fact, you're required to examine all evidence available, to insure you're not using a non-representative sample. Also, you need to show your model based on selection for "purpose" is more likely than the dominant competing hypothesis: natural selection via the second law of thermodynamics. (See doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178 by Kaila and Annila; DOI references can be resolved at doi.org).

    steiner: "The evidence supports my inference"

    If you take the trouble to express it mathematically, no, it doesn't. Particularly "non-living", unless you consider hydrogen to be living.

    steiner: "How would an entity in the program know about the programmer?"

    System call to I/O is the easiest.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner: "briefly explain the V.Ly criterion."

    Briefest? A mathematically rigorous form of Occam's Razor.

    Brief: From the paper abstract: "Basically, the ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized." The length of the model when expressed in universal church-turing automata program form is inverse to the probability of the model. The paper's result is mathematically dependent on ZF (independent of the Axiom of Choice), which in turn depend on the validity of formal propositional logic.

    steiner: "please also briefly explain the Z.Frankel axiom(s)"

    Breifly? They're some very simple axioms of set theory, which are used as the foundations for the construction of the rest of modern mathematics. It's what pure mathematicians use to prove "1+1=2". I'd recommend you check http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html, and the wikipedia page for each axiom, and then ask followup questions on any that you have problems with.

    Note the Axiom of Choice isn't needed for the Vitanyi-Li construction. (Including Choice is usually referred to as ZFC; including the refutation of Choice as ZF¬C, ZF!C, or ZF~C; and ZF for math valid whether choice is asserted or refuted.) Since there are both intuitively true or false alternative equivalent phrasings, it's just as well left to the pure math types when possible. This is alluded to with Bona's Observation: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well-ordering Principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" One of the better quips about it I've heard is "The Axiom of Choice is used to pull things out of sets that never should have been allowed in anywhere in the first place."

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Many laugh when they read Gods account of creation. In Genesis 1 and John ch. 1, we are told that the Gods Word commands into being.....

    Yet, when we speak of programmers and their lines of code..

    Are they not doing the same thing essentially?

    They speak, and the compiler takes their word and synthesizes accordingly?

    How would an entity in the program know about the programmer?

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,

    The fact that Venter is about to synthesize bacteria is evidence that life can originate from nonliving things is open to interpretation.

    The evidence supports my inference:

    That living and nonliving things ultimately only originate from what is already living.

    Man is in the process of producing robotics & programming that not only mimic, but can eventually be described as living.

    Yet, this is evidence of purpose and creation.

    And just because man has refined his plans...the purpose, the very vision of making life was there from the beginning.

    Certainly we used sand to construct, but each grain of sand and each atom has its own design.

    Just like we are able to produce a movie while controlling the very settings...or write a program and account for every detail in the picture formed by lines of code...

  • igh »
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If I needed knowledge on anything God thought I should have then he would give it unto me. He has done this in the past, I am referrencing on what was needed to build his Tabernacle in the Wilderness. All the men needed in every skill was instantly taught to them by God.

    If I needed to build the starship enterprise for God, I would be given the last detail of how to do it, warp drive and all.

    Knowledge is not the end-all. Worship and Praise of God is!

    1Timothy 4:8 "For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
    1Ti 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation."

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Abb3w - please also briefly explain the Z.Frankel axiom(s.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    abb3w - briefly explain the V.Ly criterion.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    abb3w - No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose -

    Please explain what scientific evidence does one investigates to establish purpose.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex: "Science evidence just has to be empirical and able to undergo repeated testing"

    Strictly speaking, being repeatable and empirical aren't absolute necessities. They're a practical preference, since it does make the math a lot easier. There are also alternative forms of testing than experimentation; again, the math becomes harder.

    agentorangex: "We have many competing ideas, all with varying levels of supportive evidence, but nothing as consistent and conclusive as other scienec theories like evolution."

    It's worth noting that the evolutionary theory itself has a number of competing variant forms, differing on some of the more subtle questions like the role of RNA versus proteins versus DNA in the pre-cellular environment, or the relative importance of allopatric and sympatric modes for speciation. These variants are fairly closely competitive with each other; non-evolutionary alternatives aren't competitive.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    steiner: "Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true.?"

    Wrong. First, any individual datum of evidence is, so far as science is concerned, "true".

    steiner: "Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?"

    Not yet, but that doesn't change the validity of the current hypotheses of Abiogenesis. This dates back to the classical riddle of Heraclitus's River. Complete experimental reproducibility is not necessary for inference, due to the philosophical problem of what "complete reproducibility" means. There's a fair bit of math involved; I can go over it if you care.

    steiner: "A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house?"

    No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose. Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for more info on that.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner: "What evidence?"

    Existence of differentially autocatalytic polymerization reactions is the most significant. Do you need more details?

    steiner: "Please explain what the premises are..."

    You can use "view all" to see all the posts at once. As I mentioned in an earlier post:
    Commutativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction
    Associativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction
    Definition of Logical Unary Denial via Logical Joint Denial
    Definition of Logical Joint Denial via Logical Unary Denial and Logical Exclusive Disjunction
    Axiom of Extensionality
    Axiom of the Unordered Pair
    Axiom of Subsets
    Axiom of the Sum Set
    Axiom of the Power Set
    Axiom of Infinity
    Axiom of Replacement
    Axiom of Foundation
    Reality is relatable to Evidence

    steiner: "i still need to know the premises"
    Sorry, I do work, so I don't post all the time. Which if any of the premises I list above need more explaining?

    agentorangex: "The evidence is inferred by"

    Strictly speaking, steiner has every reason to mock you for that (or at least, would if the spelling was better when doing so). Evidence is not inferred; evidence is the premise, from which you infer to some inference/conclusion/thesis. The correct phrasing would have been "The biogenic transition may be inferred from the evidence that...."

    Never waste time trying to argue nomenclature with a pedant; you waste your time and annoy the pedant.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh: "I Love God, I know he is the most wonderful person."

    Is this in the sense of a priori premise of Faith, or is this knowledge an inference from something else such as the Bible?

    igh: "This is real science."

    As before, this is not the commonly accepted definition of science.

    igh: "agentorangex and abb3w go for your science with all you have, but first give God the praise through his Son Jesus, and you will find such contentment and Joy you will sing unto God with a love filled heart"

    Experimentally untrue.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true."

    Science evidence just has to be empirical and able to undergo repeated testing. And those fossils of microbial life certainly are, though at the moment we really don't have a comprehensive understanding for how early life started. We have many competing ideas, all with varying levels of supportive evidence, but nothing as consistent and conclusive as other scienec theories like evolution.

    'Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?'

    No. Though Craig Venter and other scientists are nearly done in creating synthetic life (bacteria). But we do know simple peptides and fatty amino acids form quite easily, even in water, and are robust enough to stay in a form able to house RNA so the trick is how it boots up and begins replicating.

    What we find with these experiments is that the most basic and simple building blocks for life readily form, if it were the inverse then we'd be at a loss.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house"

    No. the small primitive bacteria used chemical bonds to form simply base amino acid chains and polymers. Ask anyone, life at it's most simplest level is chemistry and these molecules behave according to bonding principles now as they did then.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "evidence is iferred...! "

    No. There is evidence, as per the earliest life was microbial and remained so for such a long time. The inference is based on how the earliest life of all possible life wasn't an adult sheep, horse, hawk, etc., it was very primitive and simple, just what we'd expect if simple replicating molecules came to form the first forms of life.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i still need to know the premises

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house?

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true. Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    evidence is iferred...!

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steiner,

    The evidence is inferred by how the very first signs of life forms are microbial, as opposed to say a dog, fish, bird, etc. Based on this the inference is that replicating polymers in using simple base peptides were the most simplest form of life and it remained this way till multi-cellular life (like eukaryotic cells) came on the scene around 1.2 billion years ago.

    And microbial life remained this way for around 3.2 billion years (from 3.85 billion till about 650 million years ago in the Vendian period), this is how it's inferred.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    -The potential of biogenic transition (that life came from non-life) is an inference from evidence. If you wish to refute it, you may:-


    What evidence?

    1) Show an error in the derivation of the formal Vitanyi-Li criterion from the foundational premises, or rigorous contradiction resulting

    Please explain what the premises are...

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links