Creationism education bills

[Strike 6,023]

This sh*t's still going on?

 

[Gepetto 1,454]

This sh*t's still going on?

 

10 4 0 is what you could have typed.

[Frank M 181]

10 4 0 is what you could have typed.

 

Yeah, that's a big one, a rare one. I'm surprised Strike missed it.

[Strike 6,023]

Yeah, that's a big one, a rare one. I'm surprised Strike missed it.

 

This abortion of a thread should have been locked at -40-. At least it's evolved....Errr wait no it's the same sh!t 27 pages later.

 

:lock:

[Frank M 181]

This abortion of a thread should have been locked at -40-. At least it's evolved....Errr wait no it's the same sh!t 27 pages later.

 

:lock:

 

 

It is quite the abomination, but Mensa keeps saying dumb sh1t and I feel compelled to ridicule him over and over.

[Strike 6,023]

 

It is quite the abomination, but Mensa keeps saying dumb sh1t and I feel compelled to ridicule him over and over.

 

I get that. But he keeps saying the SAME SH*T. Over and Over. As a result, you keep repeating the same Sh*t in response. Over and Over. And Nikki keeps repeating the same sh*t. Over and Over. Well, in between herpes treatments anyways. I'm just saying don't you people ever get tired of going roundy round?

[Frank M 181]

I get that. But he keeps saying the SAME SH*T. Over and Over. As a result, you keep repeating the same Sh*t in response. Over and Over. And Nikki keeps repeating the same sh*t. Over and Over. Well, in between herpes treatments anyways. I'm just saying don't you people ever get tired of going roundy round?

 

I haven't yet. Now we're on journal publications, so while it's still the same, it's not exactly the same.

[nikki2200 4]

I get that. But he keeps saying the SAME SH*T. Over and Over. As a result, you keep repeating the same Sh*t in response. Over and Over. And Nikki keeps repeating the same sh*t. Over and Over. Well, in between herpes treatments anyways. I'm just saying don't you people ever get tired of going roundy round?

 

 

I kinda got tired. His posts have progressively gotten more nonsensical so every once in a while I come in here now to make fun of him. The secret PMs and e-mails were really good for a laugh.

[Strike 6,023]

I haven't yet. Now we're on journal publications, so while it's still the same, it's not exactly the same.

 

Oh. Well, in that case carry on.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

From your link

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the last one is peer-reviewed in a journal with an incredible bias towards ID.

 

So, once again, fail.

BIO-complexity's impact factor is 0...

[IMMensaMind 462]

This thread is beyond dumb... ID is just as relevant a theory as it has ever been... All the religion bashing one can muster could never trump it. Can't... Science is way out of its league at this point...

 

That's why I keep on this. I see the political stridency of Darwinists who must defend the assumption of secularism in Science - which is partly justified, and partly unjustified, and I understand just how Science can be harnessed for political/social reasons. That is something which ID squarely conquers, if left unchallenged. Shapiro's research represents to me the quintessential ID experiment, and yet he doesn't call it ID.

 

I'm fine with that. It's clear that ID under that banner has suffered a blow at the hands of those looking to protect the status quo - a status from which science didn't suffer in Newton's time.

 

At one time, scientists operated from the presumption of a Designer, and didn't scoff when something couldn't be explained scientifically, because they understood that while science has great power as a tool to allow man insight into our reality, it didn't compete with the underlying presumption of a Designer. To people of that mindset, it was just a matter of time before science discovered the mechanisms by which "God" created our realities.

 

Now, it's an effort to discover how things took place naturally. That is a presumption due to facts not in evidence, just as science claims ID lacks: facts not in evidence.

 

They're the same, but those defending that version of science are just engaging in a different form of bigotry.

 

At one time, the bigotry extended the other way, primarily due to the actions of the Catholic Church, a corrupt organization which viewed Science and scientists as a threat to their hold on power. Those who didn't believe in the Church sought refuge in Science as an escape from religious persecution, so Science has been set up as an antagonist to faith.

 

Whether you like it - or acknowledge it - or not, by forcing the inability to consider a Designer on Science, you turn Science into an anti-deist movement. Anti-deist isn't non-religious; it's simply another religion: secular humanism on one end; atheism on the other (dependent on stridency). Those of you who have acted so nasty in this thread towards these ideas are equal parts fooled by the topic, or complicit in pressing the religious aspect of Science.

 

Many of you aren't even aware of the power that comes with this religion. There is a difference in pursuing a Scientific Method and not being able to include in any scientific equation that which cannot be measured, and actually rejecting the possibility of that which cannot be measured.

 

That said, much in science violates its own rules, which is why so many criticisms of Darwinian evolution are well founded (See Alfred Russel Wallace).

 

Just because those in Science are now doing what the Church did at one time doesn't make it any less wrong. The two can co-exist.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I kinda got tired. His posts have progressively gotten more nonsensical so every once in a while I come in here now to make fun of him. The secret PMs and e-mails were really good for a laugh.

 

They're both true. Stop being nasty.

 

My work validates some of the criticisms that have been leveled at orthodox evolutionary thought, which comes to resemble religion more than science in the hands of people like Richard Dawkins. - James Shapiro

 

I think there are indications of intelligent processes throughout nature. This is especially true of cells and living organisms. You should read my review of Behe's book in National Review on this point. - James Shapiro

[nikki2200 4]

Surely you can't be serious....

[penultimatestraw 473]

On a more interesting note, has anyone seen Nat Geo Channel's special called "The Virus Hunters"? A clip here: My link

 

It talks about the huge role viruses may have played in evolution. In brief, retroviruses are RNA viruses that incorporate themselves into our genetic material, DNA, to replicate. When these viruses incorporate into gametes (sperm & egg) they can be passed on to our offspring, bringing their readily mutated genetic material with them. Most of the time, this has no consequence, and remnants of ancestral retroviruses may make up a large portion of so-called "junk" DNA. But occasionally, these chunks of DNA may result in significant changes to our genes. Because viruses can replicate and mutate far more rapidly than the genes of the cells they infect, this adds greatly to the expected variability of the genome over time - something I doubt was accounted for in Demski's pseudoscientific models. And these same viruses may have been the precursors to the transposons that McClintock won her Nobel prize for describing.

 

The clip talks about "Mimi", a huge virus which may be the evolutionary link between viruses and higher, living organisms - possibly the precursor to the cell nucleus.

 

Its nice to learn something scientifically exciting about evolution by getting involved in this topic. And I can actually understand the concepts without referencing a zealot-to-English dictionary. Nonetheless, these ideas are pretty revolutionary and still not ready for introduction into public school curricula. But I bet there are a lot more than 7 papers scientifically supporting the merits of these hypotheses. Then again, I have published more than seven times in peer-reviewed journals, and I only did research for ~5 years.

 

Should this be taught in public school Mensa?

[OldMaid 2,135]

Watch out Nic, he gets really nasty when you call him a LIAR!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Surely you can't be serious....

 

Cannot be serious about what?

[IMMensaMind 462]

On a more interesting note, has anyone seen Nat Geo Channel's special called "The Virus Hunters"? A clip here: My link

 

It talks about the huge role viruses may have played in evolution. In brief, retroviruses are RNA viruses that incorporate themselves into our genetic material, DNA, to replicate. When these viruses incorporate into gametes (sperm & egg) they can be passed on to our offspring, bringing their readily mutated genetic material with them. Most of the time, this has no consequence, and remnants of ancestral retroviruses may make up a large portion of so-called "junk" DNA. But occasionally, these chunks of DNA may result in significant changes to our genes. Because viruses can replicate and mutate far more rapidly than the genes of the cells they infect, this adds greatly to the expected variability of the genome over time - something I doubt was accounted for in Demski's pseudoscientific models. And these same viruses may have been the precursors to the transposons that McClintock won her Nobel prize for describing.

 

You should be careful making claims like that, since Dembski was one of the first to reject the notion of "junk DNA" due to this (and other) very fact.

 

The clip talks about "Mimi", a huge virus which may be the evolutionary link between viruses and higher, living organisms - possibly the precursor to the cell nucleus.

 

Unpossible. Cannot consider it unless you can prove it.

 

Ooh! I like how this works! I reject your notions as unScientific: you cannot prove it. What is the nature of this relationship? How does it work? Cannot answer these basic questions?? And you call yourself a science buff.

 

Its nice to learn something scientifically exciting about evolution by getting involved in this topic. And I can actually understand the concepts without referencing a zealot-to-English dictionary. Nonetheless, these ideas are pretty revolutionary and still not ready for introduction into public school curricula. But I bet there are a lot more than 7 papers scientifically supporting the merits of these hypotheses. Then again, I have published more than seven times in peer-reviewed journals, and I only did research for ~5 years.

 

Should this be taught in public school Mensa?

 

Is it proven, or just speculation? See: I'm all about all avenues of speculation being taught, if the subject matter is worthwhile. What do you think should be taught here? Obviously, Shapiro's research validates criticisms levelled against Darwinianism...should that be taught?

 

Darwinian Evolution was taught as THE TRUTH for decades. If that wasn't harmful, why is teaching some alternatives that are being studied?

 

[GettnHuge 2]

Cannot be serious about what?

 

wrong answer

[penultimatestraw 473]

You should be careful making claims like that, since Dembski was one of the first to reject the notion of "junk DNA" due to this (and other) very fact.

 

 

 

Unpossible. Cannot consider it unless you can prove it.

 

Ooh! I like how this works! I reject your notions as unScientific: you cannot prove it. What is the nature of this relationship? How does it work? Cannot answer these basic questions?? And you call yourself a science buff.

 

 

 

Is it proven, or just speculation? See: I'm all about all avenues of speculation being taught, if the subject matter is worthwhile. What do you think should be taught here? Obviously, Shapiro's research validates criticisms levelled against Darwinianism...should that be taught?

 

Darwinian Evolution was taught as THE TRUTH for decades. If that wasn't harmful, why is teaching some alternatives that are being studied?

 

Mensa, I recall you mentioning Dembski and "junk" DNA - notice the quotes. The implication is it isn't junk at all. What I meant is that Dembski may have recognized the DNA as valuable, but I doubt he accounted for viral replication/error rate when determining his maximum threshold for "random" chance before assigning an intelligence to the process.

 

I'm OK with you not believing these theories, and even doubting their scientific value. They haven't been proven, to be sure. But they are more scientifically plausible, given the virology of retroviruses and known incorporation of viral DNA into the human genome. This doesn't mean I reject ID as an possibility, either, even as an atheist.

 

And I think your interpretation of Shapiro's words is based on your inherent religious, non-scientific bias. Is Darwinism subject to critique and modification over time? Sure. I think Shapiro was speaking to those who rigidly adhere to precepts like one-gene, one protein and linear interpretation of the genome, not the intelligent design viewpoint. And I don't think his use of intelligence is synonymous with a creator, particularly after his dismissal of the supernatural.

 

Darwinian evolution is light years ahead of ID in its scientific support (the latter has none, as far as I can tell). There is no competing/additive theory that I am aware of which threatens evolution's scientific credibility. As I believe its constructs are legitimate, with alternative viewpoints ranging from somewhat plausible to inane, I don't see a need to invest valuable education time debating the alternatives in the classroom. Particularly when the viewpoint espouses a hypothesis which can never be disproven, like religion.

 

So maybe the seculars/atheists have turned the tables on your god-fearing brethren, but at least we aren't burning our opponents on stakes to silence their superstitions. You are free to teach the "controversy" in your place of worship, or scream it on a street corner for all we care. Just keep it out of public school please.

 

Lastly I am not a science buff; I am a scientist.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Mensa, I recall you mentioning Dembski and "junk" DNA - notice the quotes. The implication is it isn't junk at all. What I meant is that Dembski may have recognized the DNA as valuable, but I doubt he accounted for viral replication/error rate when determining his maximum threshold for "random" chance before assigning an intelligence to the process.

 

I'm OK with you not believing these theories, and even doubting their scientific value. They haven't been proven, to be sure. But they are more scientifically plausible, given the virology of retroviruses and known incorporation of viral DNA into the human genome. This doesn't mean I reject ID as an possibility, either, even as an atheist.

 

My main issue is that you're arriving at a conclusion of what is more likely here based upon a different - but equal - faith. I'm saying that both should be considered equally. By definition, you must reject ID as a possibility, because you refused to call it science.

 

It cannot be both a possibility, and impossible for science to consider it. If that is the case, then the problem is with the artificially imposed dogmatic limitations imposed upon Science as a field.

 

We all know that Science cannot consider a Universe which existed prior to the formation of Space-Time, but Scientists continue to do so. It's why M-Theory was devised; it's why Hawking literally fabricated math out of thin air.

 

If those pursuits are honored, respected and taught - but they all reflect a disqualification of Science because they consider those things which took place prior to Space-Time (the physical limitation of our Laws of Nature through which our Science is defined) - why can Intelligent Design not do likewise?

 

 

That's what I'm saying.

 

And I think your interpretation of Shapiro's words is based on your inherent religious, non-scientific bias.

 

It's hard to separate my personal belief in God from a clinical view of the intelligence displayed in something which we've previously been told was a random (read: stupid/chaotic ) phenomenon. That said, James Shapiro is Jewish.

 

Do you think he has a hard time with that too?

 

Is Darwinism subject to critique and modification over time? Sure. I think Shapiro was speaking to those who rigidly adhere to precepts like one-gene, one protein and linear interpretation of the genome, not the intelligent design viewpoint. And I don't think his use of intelligence is synonymous with a creator, particularly after his dismissal of the supernatural.

 

His dismissal of the supernatural is due to his role as a scientist; nothing more. That's why he always prefaces any comment involving the word supernatural with the phrase "as a scientist".

 

He no doubt has reconciled the two. I have not; I think the rules should be changed back to how they were before.

 

His use of the word "intelligence" is merely to describe what he sees as intelligence - so I agree with you there. I know he's not saying something in direct support of Intelligent Design himself, because he's literally forbidden to do so as a scientist.

 

That doesn't make it legitimate, though, and I believe it illustrates the absurdity of Science, if one of the possibilities has to be laughed off.

 

Darwinian evolution is light years ahead of ID in its scientific support (the latter has none, as far as I can tell).

 

I both agree and disagree with this statement. Science has had the bulk of its gains realized post-Darwin. Post Darwin was when Natural Selection was instituted and (infected) influenced scientific dogma. This part of my statement agrees with you in that - naturally - most support will come where most work was done. I disagree in the sense that pre-Darwin, most work could actually have been called Intelligent Design, which is why so many quotes abound by famous scientists lauding The Lord for the Creation which they were discovering and reporting!

 

There is no competing/additive theory that I am aware of which threatens evolution's scientific credibility.

 

I think Shapiro's POV directly threatens a main support of Darwinism. It directly affronts Natural Selection.

 

As I believe its constructs are legitimate, with alternative viewpoints ranging from somewhat plausible to inane, I don't see a need to invest valuable education time debating the alternatives in the classroom. Particularly when the viewpoint espouses a hypothesis which can never be disproven, like religion.

 

Religion isn't the hypothesis. It's Intelligent Causation. There is no reason that critical thinking human beings cannot decide that the most logical position - based upon continuing to discover an underlying intelligence at work in nature guiding it (Shapiro's words paraphrased) - is that our reality has been Intentionally set in motion.

 

It is still more logical than the leaps of faith needed to conclude that it is all an accident, considering that nothing we've ever seen in our own spacial reality implies that accidents can result in something so incredibly functional and intricate and with such purpose.

 

For some reason smart people like you cannot get through that thought, which screams to me its plain logic.

 

So maybe the seculars/atheists have turned the tables on your god-fearing brethren, but at least we aren't burning our opponents on stakes to silence their superstitions. You are free to teach the "controversy" in your place of worship, or scream it on a street corner for all we care. Just keep it out of public school please.

 

I acknowledged the burning at the stake thing, in so many words - but I also said that turning the tables right now is no less right than what took place in the distant past: a past which has nothing whatsoever to do with those of us who can only experience the present.

 

Lastly I am not a science buff; I am a scientist.

 

I am a buff - and I want to thank you for providing me one of the only posts in this thread which didn't disrespect the conversation.

[nikki2200 4]

So you are finally admitting you have a personal belief in God and you can't see any other possibility than God created everything, therefore anything that disagrees with this must be wrong.

 

Thank you.

[GettnHuge 2]

and I want to thank you for providing me one of the only posts in this thread which didn't disrespect the conversation.

 

How disrespectful to the other posters.

 

at least you admit your bias towards god where you only consider god the possibility to unanswered questions.

your credibility is in god's hands now.

[IMMensaMind 462]

So you are finally admitting you have a personal belief in God and you can't see any other possibility than God created everything, therefore anything that disagrees with this must be wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is nothing wrong with holding to that belief until proven wrong.

 

Do you have something which does that? No? Then why offer this comment?

 

What has Science offered that disagrees with a belief in God, Nikki? Are you sure you're not drifting into simply the opposite view - and making of yourself a complete hypocrite?

 

You do know that holding the belief that there isn't a God - and thinking that everything that disagrees with that is wrong...is EXACTLY as wrong, don't you?

 

Regardless who believes what personally, only one side is trying to delegitimize the research of the other side - and that's your side.

 

Science is not supposed to be antagonistic to those who believe in a Higher Power.

 

You have misguided yourself. By your standard, anyone who believes in God automatically disqualifies themselves as a Scientist.

[OldMaid 2,135]

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. You really should stop that, it's a really annoying habit.

[nikki2200 4]

There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is nothing wrong with holding to that belief until proven wrong.

 

Do you have something which does that? No? Then why offer this comment?

 

What has Science offered that disagrees with a belief in God, Nikki? Are you sure you're not drifting into simply the opposite view - and making of yourself a complete hypocrite?

 

Science is not supposed to be antagonistic to those who believe in a Higher Power.

 

You have misguided yourself. By your standard, anyone who believes in God automatically disqualifies themselves as a Scientist.

 

Did I ever say anything that you just listed? You don't even know what my religious beliefs are because I never mentioned them.

 

You, however, have been saying quite the opposite. You need science to prove there is a god to validate your faith.

 

Religion and science are two separate things to me. I can see the value in both. However, I think science is imperative to advancements in our society. I don't think we will ever be able to prove the existence of god through science. So I'd rather science stick to what they can figure out and focus on that. And teach and study science that is real and is not concocted in an effort to support religious views. Science does not negate the possibility of a higher power. It explains our natural world. I don't think figuring out how the natural world got here is all that important.

[Gepetto 1,454]

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. You really should stop that, it's a really annoying habit.

 

 

Everything you type is annoying.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Did I ever say anything that you just listed? You don't even know what my religious beliefs are because I never mentioned them.

 

You, however, have been saying quite the opposite. You need science to prove there is a god to validate your faith.

 

I'll wait for Old Maid to chide you for putting words in my mouth. I don't need science to prove that there is a God. I need those in Science who reject the notion to stop limiting what we can teach or not teach society, because I find avoiding God in society is harmful to society.

 

The Founding Fathers agree with me, which is why they said that the Constitution wasn't suitable for anyone but a moral and religious people.

 

Religion and science are two separate things to me. I can see the value in both. However, I think science is imperative to advancements in our society. I don't think we will ever be able to prove the existence of god through science. So I'd rather science stick to what they can figure out and focus on that.

 

This statement illustrates to me that you are not understanding at all the point I've been trying to make.

 

Can you name for me how anything or anyone in science would be handcuffed in any way, shape or form if science allowed the presumption to be that there is a Designer, rather than the presumption be that there isn't?

 

Particularly since the former is what was presupposed since the development of all Science?

 

And teach and study science that is real and is not concocted in an effort to support religious views. Science does not negate the possibility of a higher power.

 

No, that is not correct - but I clearly see something which you do not. I see science negating something if it says that it cannot consider the possibility. That is an illogical position from which to start, as it automatically means elimination of one of the possibilities. How in hell could Science be considered logical and rational if one of the possibilities is never considered?

 

It explains our natural world.

 

How could that be guaranteed to be true, if one of the possibilities explaining our natural world is that it was created?

 

 

I don't think figuring out how the natural world got here is all that important.

 

This statement too highlights just how badly you're missing the point. If how we got here isn't that important, then why we're here isn't important either - and since that question forms the basis of one's purpose, how you can dismiss it simply means that this subject is one you should probably stay away from entirely, as we're going to butt heads constantly.

 

It could be argued that nothing is more important to determine. I submit that you haven't considered the ramifications to your morality if you have not pondered the importance of how and why we're here.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm saying that both should be considered equally. By definition, you must reject ID as a possibility, because you refused to call it science.

 

It cannot be both a possibility, and impossible for science to consider it. If that is the case, then the problem is with the artificially imposed dogmatic limitations imposed upon Science as a field.

 

I never said science cannot consider it, but to do so requires utilization of the scientific method and experiments with reproducible, predictable results. Until that occurs it isn't science, and does not deserve equal time in a science class.

 

It's hard to separate my personal belief in God from a clinical view of the intelligence displayed in something which we've previously been told was a random (read: stupid/chaotic ) phenomenon. That said, James Shapiro is Jewish.

 

Do you think he has a hard time with that too?

 

I have no idea how he reconciles his faith with science, but there are plenty of excellent religious scientists, and great atheist ones, too!

 

His dismissal of the supernatural is due to his role as a scientist; nothing more. That's why he always prefaces any comment involving the word supernatural with the phrase "as a scientist".

 

He no doubt has reconciled the two. I have not; I think the rules should be changed back to how they were before.

 

His use of the word "intelligence" is merely to describe what he sees as intelligence - so I agree with you there. I know he's not saying something in direct support of Intelligent Design himself, because he's literally forbidden to do so as a scientist.

 

That doesn't make it legitimate, though, and I believe it illustrates the absurdity of Science, if one of the possibilities has to be laughed off.

 

I think you are making many assumptions about his intent, and the intolerance of scientists. As an atheist and scientist, I would love to see proof of God. It would make life easier in some ways - there is a reason religion has been described as an opiate.

 

I both agree and disagree with this statement. Science has had the bulk of its gains realized post-Darwin. Post Darwin was when Natural Selection was instituted and (infected) influenced scientific dogma. This part of my statement agrees with you in that - naturally - most support will come where most work was done. I disagree in the sense that pre-Darwin, most work could actually have been called Intelligent Design, which is why so many quotes abound by famous scientists lauding The Lord for the Creation which they were discovering and reporting!

 

Science has adjusted its thought as it has evolved as a discipline - moving away from the simplistic, anthropocentric explanations of religion. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings…(not my quote)

 

I think Shapiro's POV directly threatens a main support of Darwinism. It directly affronts Natural Selection.

 

I disagree. Natural selection states that biologic traits which favor survival tend to be passed on to subsequent generation over less favorable traits (assuming these traits are manifest before reproductive age). It reflects an interaction between the organism and its environment. Why can't DNA repair, gene regulation and transposition have evolved eons ago as any other process in cell biology? You choose to believe these processes were placed into effect by a designer; I choose to think we just don't know - yet, but it likely can be determined experimentally.

 

Religion isn't the hypothesis. It's Intelligent Causation. There is no reason that critical thinking human beings cannot decide that the most logical position - based upon continuing to discover an underlying intelligence at work in nature guiding it (Shapiro's words paraphrased) - is that our reality has been Intentionally set in motion.

 

It is still more logical than the leaps of faith needed to conclude that it is all an accident, considering that nothing we've ever seen in our own spacial reality implies that accidents can result in something so incredibly functional and intricate and with such purpose.

 

For some reason smart people like you cannot get through that thought, which screams to me its plain logic.

 

Although there are a lot of random variables in the equation (mutation being one of them), this does not eliminate some structure in the process. It is not complete chaos. Your way to reconcile order we haven't explained is the intelligent creator; I choose to keep my options open until a scientifically-validated reason is discovered.

 

Mensa, here is a basic question of evolution: do you think we evolved from primates? How do you think Shapiro would answer that question?

 

I acknowledged the burning at the stake thing, in so many words - but I also said that turning the tables right now is no less right than what took place in the distant past: a past which has nothing whatsoever to do with those of us who can only experience the present.

 

Keeping science in a science classroom pales in comparison to the atrocities committed in the name of religion.

 

I am a buff - and I want to thank you for providing me one of the only posts in this thread which didn't disrespect the conversation.

 

I know you have low body fat. Oh, you said a buff. Seriously though, you are welcome.

[Voltaire 5,491]

There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is nothing wrong with holding to that belief until proven wrong.

 

Do you have something which does that? No? Then why offer this comment?

 

What has Science offered that disagrees with a belief in God, Nikki? Are you sure you're not drifting into simply the opposite view - and making of yourself a complete hypocrite?

 

You do know that holding the belief that there isn't a God - and thinking that everything that disagrees with that is wrong...is EXACTLY as wrong, don't you?

 

Regardless who believes what personally, only one side is trying to delegitimize the research of the other side - and that's your side.

 

Science is not supposed to be antagonistic to those who believe in a Higher Power.

 

You have misguided yourself. By your standard, anyone who believes in God automatically disqualifies themselves as a Scientist.

 

For the first time in this thread, I agree with almost everything you say in this post. The 'almost' exemption being the parts that reference nikki. Even the bit about accusing us of trying to delegitimize the research of the other side is true. Yes, you're right, that's what we're trying to do. Just not for nefarious purposes, but simply because it really is illegitimate.

 

People can believe in God and still be scientists and do scientific research. It's only if/when they try to mix the two that problems arise. And even if they do try to mix the two, that's not the problem.

 

The problem is making up stuff and/or purposely deceiving. ID needs to be made airtight before it is re-introduced as a rival theory to evolution. What we see instead is it being backdoored in by the political muscle of it's religious supporters with scotch-tapped over, pretend scientific cover.

[IMMensaMind 462]

For the first time in this thread, I agree with almost everything you say in this post. The 'almost' exemption being the parts that reference nikki. Even the bit about accusing us of trying to delegitimize the research of the other side is true. Yes, you're right, that's what we're trying to do. Just not for nefarious purposes, but simply because it really is illegitimate.

 

I haven't said a single thing different in this post than I've said throughout this thread. People have been misconstruing what I say and mean either through lazy reading, or intentional misrepresentation.

 

I submit to you that the field of Intelligent Design is what Science once was: same as it is now, but with one critical difference: those who are practitioners of ID assume the a priori evidence of Creation as being Created.

 

In fact, I believe that the only reason that the Intelligent Design movement exists is as a backlash to this purposeful secularization of Science, which itself was a backlash to religious persecution of the Catholic Church.

 

That the Church was wrong does not make this backlash right.

 

People can believe in God and still be scientists and do scientific research. It's only if/when they try to mix the two that problems arise. And even if they do try to mix the two, that's not the problem.

 

You contradicted yourself here. "Mixing" the two is impossible, because they're compatible. You said so yourself: Science will never be able to prove God - or disprove God. What policy/position/effect on society - what ramification - exists in "mixing"? Perhaps you could lead with an example. I'd be interested to hear what you come up with. Right now, Science forces people to be taught that Random Mutation is the reason we've evolved. That is now in serious jeopardy, so if you're worried that we'll be teaching the wrong thing, we wouldn't be doing anything that hasn't been done (incorrectly) before regardless.

 

The problem is making up stuff and/or purposely deceiving. ID needs to be made airtight before it is re-introduced as a rival theory to evolution. What we see instead is it being backdoored in by the political muscle of it's religious supporters with scotch-tapped over, pretend scientific cover.

 

We've already deceived, IMO. If we've taught that Science cannot consider one possibility, Science has been deceptive all along.

[GettnHuge 2]

Right now, Science forces people to be taught that Random Mutation is the reason we've evolved. That is now in serious jeopardy, so if you're worried that we'll be teaching the wrong thing, we wouldn't be doing anything that hasn't been done (incorrectly) before regardless.

 

 

 

We've already deceived, IMO. If we've taught that Science cannot consider one possibility, Science has been deceptive all along.

 

Which god is the right god?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Science will never be able to prove God - or disprove God.

 

Science can potentially prove God exists. It cannot prove he/she/it doesn't, which is one of the main reasons I am skeptical of a "scientific" theory which evokes a nebulous designer as its main tenet.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I never said science cannot consider it, but to do so requires utilization of the scientific method and experiments with reproducible, predictable results. Until that occurs it isn't science, and does not deserve equal time in a science class.

 

There are all sorts of positions that Science official offers for public consumption that don't pass this test, foremost among them being macroevolution, which has been wholly off in explaining the lack of transitory fossils in the amounts and types required to fill in the Darwinistic presupposition of common descent. Science has played fast and loose with this stuff, and much of it in direct response to a Church explaining that God Created everything Himself, and there it was.

 

Science should hold a far more neutral position wrt to Macroevolution that it does, based upon the evidence so far.

 

I have no idea how he reconciles his faith with science, but there are plenty of excellent religious scientists, and great atheist ones, too!

 

I only have guesses as to how he reconciles the two, based upon what he's written. You must read between the lines. I believe my reading between the lines has been accurate, as it explains his careful wording around this topic.

 

I think you are making many assumptions about his intent, and the intolerance of scientists.

 

I am making many presumptions, because the rules of science forbid him overly expressing something which science (under the present proscription) would say is illegitimate. I know he's Jewish, and I know he utilizes his faith in his life.

 

As an atheist and scientist, I would love to see proof of God. It would make life easier in some ways - there is a reason religion has been described as an opiate.

 

Gonna sound trite, but proof is within you. I can understand the opiate comment, but there is also something about belief which releases something quite powerful and empowering.

 

Science has adjusted its thought as it has evolved as a discipline - moving away from the simplistic, anthropocentric explanations of religion.

 

I believe the opposite. In rejecting one possibility, it has actually moved towards being simplistic (and also misguided).

 

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings…(not my quote)

 

Science also kills millions of people on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (if we're looking to split hairs). You misidentify, much like lefties who blame guns for crime.

 

I disagree. Natural selection states that biologic traits which favor survival tend to be passed on to subsequent generation over less favorable traits (assuming these traits are manifest before reproductive age). It reflects an interaction between the organism and its environment.

 

Natural Selection's core principle is that this interaction between organism and environment results in the stronger organism surviving only because of repeated accidental mutatiions, thus resulting in survival only by accident, and through sheer numbers. This model has not correctly predicted evolution as we can now see it, which is why the term Punctuated Equilibrium was created: someone had to come up with something, because Darwinian Evolution as a model wasn't correctly making predictions.

 

ID proponents have been far more accurate in predictions, which as you know is a hallmark of an accurate theory. IDers were the ones who warned that bacteria would become antibiotic resistant far before Darwinists did. Darwinists predicted that there was no danger of wide-spread antibiotic activity, because the bacteria could not possibly randomly mutate fast enough to become resistant. They predicted a mutational evolutionary cycle of ~1000 years.

 

They were inccrrect. It took about 55 years - and now we have a huge problem.

 

This is a critical manifestation of how I believe Science has gotten off track. By accepting the Random Mutation (read: neo-Darwinist) version of things, we have caused ourselves serious biologic problems.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why can't DNA repair, gene regulation and transposition have evolved eons ago as any other process in cell biology?

 

No one is saying that it couldn't have. IDer's are merely studying whether there is another answer, and such studies should be instinctively considered Science. Science, however, doesn't want ID to play in its field.

 

I submit to you that Shapiro's work could be called ID research, if someone had been exposed to it without knowing what it was or where it came from. I find ID simply "Science that presumes a Designer".

 

So: while I'm saying that no one is saying that this cellular intelligence couldn't have somehow evolved, I have two points to make wrt that:

 

1) Science is definitely trying to say that that must have been how it happened, because no consideration of any other possibility (there being only one, btw: that this intelligence was put there) is allowed. This you have to cede as true, because that's why we're arguing.

 

2) If we go with the official Scientific Presupposition, which is that everything evolved, including this Intelligence, Science has a very tough road to hoe to logically establish how the process of evolution actually evolved the process by which Evolution evolves.

 

Because that...makes no. sense. at. all. What we're talking about here is that Evolution itself is Intelligent. It would have to be, if our present discoveries about mutations which ensure the preservation of a species not being random at all holds up.

 

The only other possibility I see - and I could imagine it being viable (somehow) - is that at first the process was random, but then it learned how not to be random. There is no indication in the fossil record of an accelerated evolutionary development, however, as that would almost be required to support such a notion, hence my musing that the road to make that case would be VERY difficult.

 

You choose to believe these processes were placed into effect by a designer; I choose to think we just don't know - yet, but it likely can be determined experimentally.

 

I do not understand this statement, as it appears to make valid my claim that ID is testable: it's just that the tests are extremely simple, and based largely upon mathematical probabilities (hence Dembski's involvement in this topic).

 

Although there are a lot of random variables in the equation (mutation being one of them), this does not eliminate some structure in the process. It is not complete chaos. Your way to reconcile order we haven't explained is the intelligent creator; I choose to keep my options open until a scientifically-validated reason is discovered.

 

See: this is where I believe we have an impasse, and it's based upon how you chose to put that last statement: there is no difference between how open we keep our options: I presuppose a Designer (who I'll call God), but am open to all evidence; you presuppose no God, but are open to all evidence (even though I consider your inability to see the evidence right in front of you as evidence is curious to me, considering that everything you've experienced in your life that has such definitive complex specificity is known by you to be designed).

 

Believing in an Intelligent Creator doesn't hamper my desire to search out an understanding of the functions of the Design whatsoever.

 

Mensa, here is a basic question of evolution: do you think we evolved from primates? How do you think Shapiro would answer that question?

 

I believe the evidence of this is fairly overwhelming, but I'm open to alterations to this theory.

 

Keeping science in a science classroom pales in comparison to the atrocities committed in the name of religion.

 

Non sequitur. These aren't analogous topics. There are plenty of atrocities in recorded history of backlashes against religion, including Pol Pot and Stalin. You again are blaming the gun for crime.

 

I know you have low body fat. Oh, you said a buff. Seriously though, you are welcome.

 

Ha!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Science can potentially prove God exists.

 

By what mechanism can a discipline like Science - which is limited to only operating within the constraints of the Laws of Nature - possibly discern proof of the God that created the very rules by which it must judge?

 

That is as impossible as proving the opposite.

 

I submit to you that it wouldn't be Science proving God exists, it would be God proving to the Scientist that He exists.

 

It cannot prove he/she/it doesn't, which is one of the main reasons I am skeptical of a "scientific" theory which evokes a nebulous designer in its main tenet.

 

I think you have it exactly backwards. It isn't about proof regardless: it's about evidence - and, as I also said - this effort wouldn't even exist if Science simply presupposed it.

 

ID exists IMO solely because of secular backlash to religious persecution of Scientists.

[Gepetto 1,454]

I'm pretty sure I remembered learning there was a new belief that significant changes to populations of organisms are now likely thought to have taken place quickly and in relation to geoligical changes. If true, I'm not sure if that helps support evolution or more refutes evolution. Can't remember all of the particulars from my evolution class in college.

[Voltaire 5,491]

I haven't said a single thing different in this post than I've said throughout this thread. People have been misconstruing what I say and mean either through lazy reading, or intentional misrepresentation.

 

I submit to you that the field of Intelligent Design is what Science once was: same as it is now, but with one critical difference: those who are practitioners of ID assume the a priori evidence of Creation as being Created.

 

In fact, I believe that the only reason that the Intelligent Design movement exists is as a backlash to this purposeful secularization of Science, which itself was a backlash to religious persecution of the Catholic Church.

 

That the Church was wrong does not make this backlash right.

 

 

 

You contradicted yourself here. "Mixing" the two is impossible, because they're compatible. You said so yourself: Science will never be able to prove God - or disprove God. What policy/position/effect on society - what ramification - exists in "mixing"? Perhaps you could lead with an example. I'd be interested to hear what you come up with. Right now, Science forces people to be taught that Random Mutation is the reason we've evolved. That is now in serious jeopardy, so if you're worried that we'll be teaching the wrong thing, we wouldn't be doing anything that hasn't been done (incorrectly) before regardless.

 

 

 

We've already deceived, IMO. If we've taught that Science cannot consider one possibility, Science has been deceptive all along.

Creationism/ID is the mixing of science and religion. You're right btw, it's a backlash to science proving the Biblical story of creation as false. It's a retreat position for believers who don't want to embrace evolution. Just because it's a backlash, doesn't make it true, it just means they need to bring the required evidence or get shown to be an pdated lie trying to muscle it's way back in for a second time.

 

And random mutation is the reason we evolve. Fish evolve eyes, yet cave fish have eye sockets but lose their eyes. Nearly identical to fish inside and outside outside the cave, just the ones inside are without eyes. Obviously, they don't need a soft spot on their face to bump into things and get infected. So presumably after a flood washed them into a cave, they either evolved through random mutation to get rid of their eyes or else some conscientious, sympathetic alien got out of it's UFO and re-engineered it's DNA due to his own kindness and generosity.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm pretty sure I remembered learning there was a new belief that significant changes to populations of organisms are now likely thought to have taken place quickly and in relation to geoligical changes. If true, I'm not sure if that helps support evolution or more refutes evolution. Can't remember all of the particulars from my evolution class in college.

 

That is called Punctuated Equilibrium, and it was developed as a theory within the theory of Evolution by Darwinists who knew that their claim of random mutation should have created even and consistent development of species - and such a claim would have been evident in the fossil record. The fossil record, however, didn't cooperate, and as such what you're describing was literally fabricated out of thin air.

 

Now, Shapiro's research opens the door into a far more (IMO) plausible answer: that cellular genetic intelligent guides the organism to change and adapt only when pressed to do so through adversity (what McClintock called 'gene shock'). Since our Earth has experienced different Ages, this shock came in that form, hence the staggered fossil record.

 

At least that's my understanding.

[GettnHuge 2]

Creationism/ID is the mixing of science and religion. You're right btw, it's a backlash to science proving the Biblical story of creation as false. It's a retreat position for believers who don't want to embrace evolution. Just because it's a backlash, doesn't make it true, it just means they need to bring the required evidence or get shown to be a lie for a second time.

 

And random mutation is the reason we evolve. Fish evolve eyes, yet cave fish have eye sockets but lose their eyes. Nearly identical to fish inside and outside outside the cave, just the ones inside are without eyes. Obviously, they don't need a soft spot on their face to bump into things and get infected. So presumably after a flood washed them into a cave, they either evolved through random mutation to get rid of their eyes or else some conscientious, sympathetic alien got out of it's UFO and re-engineered it's DNA due to his own kindness and generosity.

 

top notch

 

which god is the right god?

[Gepetto 1,454]

Creationism/ID is the mixing of science and religion. You're right btw, it's a backlash to science proving the Biblical story of creation as false. It's a retreat position for believers who don't want to embrace evolution. Just because it's a backlash, doesn't make it true, it just means they need to bring the required evidence or get shown to be a lie for a second time.

 

Wrong. You should look up the definition of scientific THEORY.

 

 

And random mutation is the reason we evolve. Fish evolve eyes, yet cave fish have eye sockets but lose their eyes. Nearly identical to fish inside and outside outside the cave, just the ones inside are without eyes. Obviously, they don't need a soft spot on their face to bump into things and get infected. So presumably after a flood washed them into a cave, they either evolved through random mutation to get rid of their eyes or else some conscientious, sympathetic alien got out of it's UFO and re-engineered it's DNA due to his own kindness and generosity.

 

Name three random mutations that are beneficial with sources that show evolution in humans.

 

Also, link to proof that fish evolved eyes? There's a big difference between losing an organ or losing the function of an organ as opposed to the development of an organ and it's function (sight in this instance).