Intelligent Design ruling

[BMXTRIX]

I think one of the big things here is that we have gone on for over 100 posts discussing, as adults intelligent design (creationism?) vs. evolution. This is exactly what a lot of classes simply don't have the time for, especially with kids who may not have enough self control to avoid getting into the entire religious side of the debate, which is exactly what schools are trying to stay out of.

This is why the subject should stay out of public schools. Evolution does not eliminate intelligent design as a possibility, but intelligent design indicates some sort of unproven, unprovable deist involvement which is healthy for philosophy classes, but not intrinsically valuable to a science and history class.

 

[Tomorrow]

This discussion has gone on long enough. Obviously, the design is not all that intelligent. An intelligent design would be comprised of easily revovable and replaceable modules. Then you wouldn't have to sit in the dentist's chair for an hour. Remove a couple of clips and screws and your mandible would slide out, exposing the teeth for maintenance, repair or replacement. And the nerves would not be so close to the gums as to cause unneeded pain. And every woman would come with a remote with a pause button! How much more proof do you need?

I was telling my wife about this thread this morning over breakfast. She made one comment and it cracked me up. She said, "Concerning Intelligent Design...If it's true, why was the fossil record put there? Was it just to mess with our minds. What's the point?"

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Not so intelligent design

Is it really ID when you consider the age of the Universe, the Milky Way, the Solar System, the Sun and even Earth - then compare it to Homo Sapiens reign on Earth? We're really insignificant in this entire scope if you look back to the beginning of time.

Religion and all, is it feasible - or arrogant, to think that was all put here for modern day man? After all, before there was the written Word (before there was writing for that matter), what happened to the poor souls who didn't know any better? Is religion only for the semi-educated?

One can only wonder if God's experiment holds true in other parts of the Universe with other semi-educated life.

(I use semi-educated because no one is truly "fully educated")

 

[Tomorrow]

(I use semi-educated because no one is truly "fully educated")

The more edjekated you become the more semi you realize you are. Wow, the more one learns, the more one learns how much one does not know. Ignorance truly is blissful.

 

[majorloser]

I was telling my wife about this thread this morning over breakfast. She made one comment and it cracked me up. She said, "Concerning Intelligent Design...If it's true, why was the fossil record put there? Was it just to mess with our minds. What's the point?"

Next thing you know, she'll start posting here...................

It's contagious

 

[chicagomd]

I stand corrected, sorry jax.

not sorry furrycute.

and no it was necessary. I haven’t spent the last 17 years of my life defending this country to hear people degrade our leaders. Maybe that’s part of this countries problems, all you people that sit and complain instead of doing something about it. I personally didn’t like some things previous presidents have done, but that is no reason to call them stupid or faulted. They all must have some qualities to become the elected leader of the free world.

With all due respect to you, your time spent, and the sacrifices made for this country, the "qualities" of this president include: A rich and politically powerful father, Karl Rove, **** Cheney, and a poor grasp of the english language. The first three are what got him into power, make no mistake about it. This does not make him that different from previous presidents.

Questioning, and yes, being critical of the president and government is part of what you are fighting for and defending. It may not be pretty, or even correct, but it is the way it should be in a free society. Blind faith in leadership has never been, and should never be, a quality of democracy. And as far as respect for leadership is concerned: "Earned, never given."

As far as ID vs. Evolution is concerned, way to many great posts for me to add anything of real substance. But I would like to say that one of the fundamentals of scientific endeavors is to find an answer to a series of observations. ID is the exact opposite. It is an answer in search of observatinos to validate it. This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. When I take my kids to Sunday school I do not expect them to be taught about biology or chemistry. Why when your kids go to science class would you expect them to be taught Christianity or Islam? The debate is not about the validity of ID as an explaination of the universe, nor about the infalibility of evlolution, but rather if ID iis a scientific endeavor or a religious one.

 

[Dan]

With all due respect to you, your time spent, and the sacrifices made for this country, the "qualities" of this president include: A rich and politically powerful father, Karl Rove, **** Cheney, and a poor grasp of the english language. The first three are what got him into power, make no mistake about it. This does not make him that different from previous presidents.

Questioning, and yes, being critical of the president and government is part of what you are fighting for and defending. It may not be pretty, or even correct, but it is the way it should be in a free society. Blind faith in leadership has never been, and should never be, a quality of democracy. And as far as respect for leadership is concerned: "Earned, never given."

As far as ID vs. Evolution is concerned, way to many great posts for me to add anything of real substance. But I would like to say that one of the fundamentals of scientific endeavors is to find an answer to a series of observations. ID is the exact opposite. It is an answer in search of observatinos to validate it. This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. When I take my kids to Sunday school I do not expect them to be taught about biology or chemistry. Why when your kids go to science class would you expect them to be taught Christianity or Islam? The debate is not about the validity of ID as an explaination of the universe, nor about the infalibility of evlolution, but rather if ID iis a scientific endeavor or a religious one.

You forgot to mention a brother who is governor of the state tha decided the first election. As to the rest, very well put. I also encourage doubters of evolution to read anything on the subject by Stephen J. Gould who is vastly more eloquent than I am.

 

[Audioholics]

I also encourage doubters of evolution to read anything on the subject by Stephen J. Gould who is vastly more eloquent than I am.

Me too, actually. One good thing he did was very clearly state that the fossil record could not support evolution with all of its gaps - thus he became the leading proponent of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution happened in fits and jerks via cataclysmic events rather than gradually.

Gould argued that “gradualism” (the standard evolutionary belief that change is smooth, slow, and steady), simply is not substantiated in the “record of the rocks” (see Natural History, February, 1978, p. 24)

 

[droeses58]

Me too, actually. One good thing he did was very clearly state that the fossil record could not support evolution with all of its gaps - thus he became the leading proponent of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution happened in fits and jerks via cataclysmic events rather than gradually.

Gould argued that “gradualism” (the standard evolutionary belief that change is smooth, slow, and steady), simply is not substantiated in the “record of the rocks” (see Natural History, February, 1978, p. 24)

Noah's Ark, Great Flood, Perhaps?

 

[gene]

I think one of the big things here is that we have gone on for over 100 posts discussing, as adults intelligent design (creationism?) vs. evolution. This is exactly what a lot of classes simply don't have the time for, especially with kids who may not have enough self control to avoid getting into the entire religious side of the debate, which is exactly what schools are trying to stay out of.

This is why the subject should stay out of public schools. Evolution does not eliminate intelligent design as a possibility, but intelligent design indicates some sort of unproven, unprovable deist involvement which is healthy for philosophy classes, but not intrinsically valuable to a science and history class.

I have spoken to a few science teachers recently and the truth is regardless of the government ruling against ID, most teachers simply refuse to teach this theory because it is severly flawed and lacks little scientific merit. This is also why it was rejected by legitimate Science communities.


Here is a direct quote from a local high school biology teacher I know:

As a teacher of Biology the argument of teaching "Intelligent Design" hits close to home. The laws proposed in other states would not make it on the ballot here simply because the teachers would refuse to teach it. Most of our Biology teachers do not believe in "Intelligent Design". One of the posts asked "Why can't they teach both sides?" My question to them is "Which view would you like us to teach? Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Hindu?"

The idea that evolution does NOT exist is NOT up for debate. The mechanism by which it happens is. As stated in one of the threads, a common HIGH SCHOOL experiment is to select bacteria from a petri dish that are naturally resistant to antibiotics and culture them so that most of the following generations are resistant to antibiotics. We also can transfer a plasmid (a strand of DNA) into a bacteria that makes it resistant to antibiotics. Some bacteria can divide every 20 minutes! in just a few days we can see marked changes in the bacteria's DNA.

Right now there are two theories for how organisms evolve, Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium. In gradualism, organisms evolve slowly over time. In punctuated equilibrium evolution occurs rapidly for a short time and then change is slow or nonexistent for hundreds or thousands of years. Punctuated equilibrium could explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species.

The studies of Mad Cow disease are creating some interesting ideas of how organisms may evolve through punctuated equilibrium. Next time you have a "conversation" about creationism vs. evolution ask them to explain a PRION. Basically a prion is a protein (a string of DNA). It's not alive, it's more simple than a virus. It takes our own DNA and folds it differently so that it makes more prions. Prions tend to cluster in brain tissue so if we eat brain tissue infected with prions (COOKED OR RAW!) we get the prions (So don't eat lambs head) We possibly already have prions in our systems waiting to turn on with the right environmental factors. This is just one idea of how punctuated equilibrium could occur. Transposons, retrovirus, retrogenes, are all valid explanations for how rapid evolution could occur.

As for the threads about the "Theory" of evolution have them talk to bugs bunny. When Bugs didn't believe in the theory of gravity he didn't fall. A theory is a well tested explanation for an event. For example: Darwin's Theory of evolution(fact) by natural selection (theory). Natural selection is the mechanism to which evolution (fact) took place.

 

[gene]

More Thoughts on ID

Regarding Mutations:
Despite what the ID camp claims on mutations being mostly deleterious, the truth is most mutations are neutral or nearly neutral - simplying checking out a basic evolution genetics book and you can clearly see this.

Mutations Harmful or Neutral?

We are all mutants

Genetic Mutations lead to speech in humans

Punctuated vs Gradual Evolution
as far as punctuated vs. gradual evolution - either process can be at work - its triggered by externalities in the environment - in a stable enviroment there's no selective forces at work to jump start evolution - however, if a mutation occurs in a changing environment and that mutuation is adaptive that's when things jump!

Micro vs Macro Evolution
microevolutionary processes are the same forces at work as macroevolutionary processes - the main difference is the time scale involved - because we can see microevolutionary processes does not discount macroevolutionary forces which are at work at much longer time intervals.

Reference Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and read about finches to see how adaptations spread throughout populations to result in speciation events. This is classic text book stuff and it’s taught at the elementary biology levels.


Some Thoughts about ID
Microevolution is all the evolution that a creationist can be forced to admit to; macroevolution is everything else.

Microevolution means (to creationists) trivial evolution, which doesn't really count. Hence they will admit microevolution happens (after all it is in effect simply whatever evolution they admit to) and still be confident that no 'real' evolution happens.

I found these references to be quite enlightening
===================================

On bird origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html

PE
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Micro Macro evo / Darwin's' finches short term micro, while the 13 or so species on the islands show Macro within the last couple million years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html


macro evo Wilkins 1997 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

29 Evidences for Macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

beneficial mutations http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Again Most mutations are nearly neutral. However, many mutations that are nearly neutral at first are gene duplications. These set the stage for beneficial evolution because one copy of a gene can take on a new function while the other continues the old function. Many other mutations involve the regulation of gene expression. Many mutations of both these types have been important human and chimpanzee evolution since the split perhaps six million years ago.

You can also look up many topics in the EvoWiki. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

Its funny how many ID supportors claim to be well versed in ID and Evolution, but they twist and distort the concepts of genetics and evolution to fit their agenda of promoting psuedo science to disprove it. Is it me or is this cable snake oil deja vu?

 

[gene]

My brother wished to add the following points to dine on:

I had some time to think through it yesterday - it's amazing to me that the some people just can't see the big picture - when you look at quantum physics (string theory) there is actually a convergence taking place between science and spirituality (rent the movie - "what the bleep do we know?"). It's too bad one religion is trying to assert itself as the dominant paradigm when there are so many ways to experience the Creator's Creation without feeling threatened by science or spirituality or having to take sides. At some point, I plan on writing a book about this as I think both sides are missing the point.

Here's an example - as a scientist I believe the universe was "born" out of a massive explosion (started as a singular point - implosion) that turned into the Big Bang some 10 billion years ago. This "belief" is based on observations of stars and intergalactic processes through deductive reasoning and inferential conclusions (its not a religion!). Science can tell us that this event (the Big Bang) was the birth of the universe, however, there are competing theories and this may have been but one of several birthing events as the universe may start contracting on itself at some point in the future leading to a another Big Bang (Carl Sagan wrote extensively on this topic) and the recycling of the entire universal process - some what like reincarnation in the Hindu sense - so why don't we teach reincarnation - get my drift - there are lots of interpretations spiritually about why we are here but only one scientific theory. Key question, however - what started the Big Bang? Science gets us to the nano-section immediately following the bang but not before the event itself. Spirituality tells us that a supernatural being - the Creator - God - Allah - and numerous aboriginal teachings about the Creator - started the event. Thus, if a Creator is responsible for the universal bang, then why can't science be used to describe the process leading up through the evolution of millions of plants and animals on this planet? Why can't we use science to explore all the "parts" of the Creation without feeling threatened by either? In my mind, its not an either order situation. Where we get into trouble is being forced to teach "creationism," "intelligent design", etc along side science. For instance, the scientific methodology is set up to falsify a hypothesis based on observations made in nature and statistical probabilities about what is inferred about the real-world. In comparison, spirituality explains the world we live in outside the realm of observation and scientific methodology. The two are very different approaches - this is why I think its best to keep them separate in the class room and let individuals decide how to deal with the issues about death, dying, and where we came from that science cannot explain. Further, there are hundreds of creation "myths" but there is but one dominant scientific theory on the birthing of the universe and this theory is based on observations (facts) - clearly one is a science the other is not - both have legitimacy in our world as people can choose freely regarding what they wish to believe or worship - we are a country of plurality that's being forced into singularity regarding a so-called dominant religious paradigm - the main problem I see here is when one religion asserts itself as the dominant view at the exclusion of the many! Native Americans believe in the "Great Mystery," which is the universal Creator - this belief points to Creator as a wondrous "mystery." Anyone that claims they "know the will of God" is really missing the point. We can never know anyone's will other than our own - spirituality is something you feel inside and express on the outside - God, the Creator, or anything else you want to call "It" is an individual experience and something to be worked on from the inside - life long process.

 

[furrycute]

Prions are proteins, not DNA.

Prion diseases have been identified in humans, sheep, cows. Mad cow disease is a form of prion disease. So it is advisable not to eat beef.

 

[runninkyle17]

For all the evolutionists out there; before you even begin to talk about the evolution of men from the primodial goo, you must first discuss the concept of energy. Where did the amount of energy necessary to begin life come from? I seem to remember the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally, so what exactly caused the cataclysmic event that began life.

Logically, if energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural means, then you have to factor in supernatural means. I know some of you will read this post and shake you heads at my stupidity, but I will ask that you take some time and think about my statement before you get all flustered at what I have just said.

Also if you are thinking about retorting with some comment about how the enrgy to begin life has always been and at some point it just so happened to come together in the correct way to make the first amino acids, then the first nucleic acids, then the first proteins, etc. well I would ask that you think about that too. As a medical student, I can say that years of schooling has only strengthened in my belief of creationism. That is all I will say for now. Have a merry Christmas everyone!

 

[gene]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all the evolutionists out there; before you even begin to talk about the evolution of men from the primodial goo, you must first discuss the concept of energy. Where did the amount of energy necessary to begin life come from? I seem to remember the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally, so what exactly caused the cataclysmic event that began life.

Logically, if energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural means, then you have to factor in supernatural means. I know some of you will read this post and shake you heads at my stupidity, but I will ask that you take some time and think about my statement before you get all flustered at what I have just said.

Also if you are thinking about retorting with some comment about how the enrgy to begin life has always been and at some point it just so happened to come together in the correct way to make the first amino acids, then the first nucleic acids, then the first proteins, etc. well I would ask that you think about that too. As a medical student, I can say that years of schooling has only strengthened in my belief of creationism. That is all I will say for now. Have a merry Christmas everyone!

Very simple answer. Evolution DOESN'T try to explain anything prior to BIG BANG. This is why a common ground between creationism and evolution seems most plausable.

Food for though to ID people:
Lets assume this theory was factual for a moment. How can you assume that GOD was behind it? Why couldn't it be a more evolved alien society, or even ourselves from a distant future, hows that for a paradox?

 

[Audioholics]

[off topic]
Since this seems to be the most popular thread of the period I wanted to take some time to wish everyone a Merry Christmas! Be safe and be sure to check out our CES coverage starting in about a week.
[/offtopic]

 

[gene]

Evolution Named 2005's Top Scientific Breakthrough

Evolution Named 2005's Top Scientific Breakthrough

Since this seems to be the most popular thread of the period I wanted to take some time to wish everyone a Merry Christmas! Be safe and be sure to check out our CES coverage starting in about a week.

Yes Merry XMAS to All and to all a good night Clint get plrenty of R&R as we are all gonna need it for the looooong walks at CES.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Gould argued that “gradualism” (the standard evolutionary belief that change is smooth, slow, and steady), simply is not substantiated in the “record of the rocks” (see Natural History, February, 1978, p. 24)

Noah's Ark, Great Flood, Perhaps?

Too recent. The "great flood", when people attempt to historically date everything in the bible, happens about 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. (Of course boatbuilding technology on such a scale wouldn't have been possible till the 17th century. And no mention is ever made of penguins or mooses). This is not enough time to "evolve" any of the larger species.

Another question: Are dog breeds more evolved than wolves, or just an equally-evolved branch of the line? (that one always gets me).

 

[Tomorrow]

Logically, if energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural means, then you have to factor in supernatural means. I know some of you will read this post and shake you heads at my stupidity, but I will ask that you take some time and think about my statement before you get all flustered at what I have just said.
!

Well, I don't think I'm "all flustered" by what you said. So....Why must you "factor in supernatural means"? What is there out there to drive you to this thought..."Well, if I can't explain it, it must be supernatural."? Show me a supernatural thing. Ghosts, angels, gods? You might as well attibute the thing/event to aliens....it makes just that much sense.

It has been said many times, in this thread even, that because a thing cannot be explained, does not mean that it doesn't have a natural explanation. 800 years ago, no one could describe what was going on with the solar system and galaxy. Does that mean god kept the stars from falling out of the sky? No one could explain what caused a rainbow. Does that mean it was a blessing from a god?

For very personal reasons I understand your need to contemplate the unexplainable, particularly when it comes to life, and living, and infinities. But those are ponderable 'why' questions without resolution. Only 'faith' is your guide (and answer). As Gene has hammered home here, science is proof based. 'Faith' and 'proof' are entirely different animals and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Back to the original issue of evolution...The statement was made by ID followers that the 1 billion (or more likely 3 billion) or whatever number of years life has been around is insufficient for the complexity of phylogenesis we have today. There has been some interesting research that has been making the papers recently concerning human migration out of Africa. In the very short time Homo sapiens have been spreading and populating all corners of the planet, several really divergent gene pools have developed, not just in all macrofauna, but with us humans as well (caucasian, Asian, etc.). I think that's pretty amazing diversity for just a few tens of thousands of years. It turns out that reproductively isolated gene pools can crank out formidable change rather quickly. But Gene has been shouting that for two days now. LOL.

 

[runninkyle17]

Very simple answer. Evolution DOESN'T try to explain anything prior to BIG BANG. This is why a common ground between creationism and evolution seems most plausable.

I know that evolution does not try to explain anything before BIG BANG; however, if you admit that the energy to begin life was not created naturally and was created supernaturally then you are not far off from coming to the conclusion that there is a god. If God is real then you have to ask yourself if you would rather believe the incomplete theory of evolution (that has little scietific evidence) or believe in what is written in the Bible (that also has little scientific evidence).

I would also like to point out that the probability of evolution occuring at all is less than the probability that God created the universe and life. SO in other words, according to probabilites, evolutionists must have more faith to believe in evolution than creationists that believe in creationism. Just so food for thought.

I respect everyone out there who has looked into all of this and actually done some research into the subject instead of believing what you hear on the news. I have done plently of digging around myself to get some bearing on the subject at hand. In my experience I have chosen to believe that God is real, that the Bible is true, and that God created life. I will say that while I know this to be true, others may not believe the way I do. I will not try to force my beliefs on anyone and I will not lose respect for anyone who disagrees with me. However, my faith will not be swayed and I will do everything I can to provide information about creationism and the arguments I have in favor of it.

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope the holidays are going well for all of you!