quote:

If the institution feels the theory is worthy enough to bear fruit, than that's their decision? But its their choice, and ID'ers don't get to cry conspiracy theories when their pet theory just doesn't pass muster for those institutions when they make their choices for what areas of research to pursue.

quote:

Already said I hadn't yet, but I've read quite a bit about it and of course, watched all the trailers. Behe himself is still employed at his university, even though they dont endorse his views... Arguably the pioneer of the modern ID movement hasn't been 'expelled' for his beliefs... so wheres the conspiracy again?

quote:

Evidence? How about the origin of eukaryotes? How long does that take? The cell? Any idea?

quote:

Ah yes, the only way to disprove evolution is through the miraculous; and this is what passes as science in your mind?

quote:

And I am less than impressed that you think your opinion is sufficient evidence.

quote:

It's interesting to see how easily my thoughts can be distorted! Maybe I should use smaller words next time. See, my point was that the Germ Theory of Disease is the accepted standard of medicine because it fits with our observations and makes good predictions. If you came up with a better theory, then it would be put into practice. But trying to refute an accurate theory by saying, "goddidit" is irresponsible and ignorant (and in the case of Germ Theory, dangerous). The same thing works for the Darwinian Theory of Evolution-- it fits with our observation and makes good predictions. It's irresponsible and ignorant to dismiss all of our scientific investigation with the handwave of "goddidit--" and in the case of people teaching impressionable students, it's disingenuous and mind-numbing.

quote:

Conclusion? God has never been observed, measured, or quantified. It is not only unscientific, it's idiotic to insert him into any theory whatsoever, whether that attempt at insertion be creationism or "Intelligent Design." Now, if you manage to find god, call for evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they'd love to meet him.

quote:

String theory is a hypothesis that cannot be tested yet, due to the limitations of our technology. I have yet to read of any physicists who claim that String theory is an accurate representation of our universe. And abiogenesis is a valid theory as to the origin of life, due to reasons that I keep mentioning over and over again.

quote:

Not until the Southern Baptist Convention decides to fund a school of evolutionary biology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian
Nope. Fortunately, DNA provides a record that can't be tampered with. Genes don't lie, unlike historians. There's no interpretation, unless you'd like to consider reading the results "interpretation."

quote:

and UCD is historical.

quote:


DNA mutations can be traced backwards, and mDNA remains unchanged for huge periods of time-- thus making any changes easily observable and traceable backwards.

quote:


Genes cannot be transmitted unless an organism reproduces. If a human being and bacteria share genes, then ipso facto, bacteria are related to us through a common ancestor.

quote:


It's not open to "interpretation."

quote:


The evidence stands, and it can't be otherwise unless you plug your ears, screaming, "It's not real! They're all conspiring against me!"

quote:


Good point! Unfortunately, that's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to show you that a non-living protein replicator is possible in nature. And you concede that it is.

quote:


When I build my time machine, you'll be the first one that I call. Science isn't about proving something. Science is about forming theories that conform to what we observe and making theories that have predictive capabilities.

quote:


A non-living protein replicator is feasable,

quote:


and fits with what we've observed, due to:

quote:


1. Our most ancient common ancestor had to be simpler than a single-celled bacteria, pointing towards a non-living protein replicator.

quote:


2. Viruses and prions exist.

quote:


Therefore, it's feasible that a non-living protein replicator could *even* exist.

quote:


They reinforce each other.

quote:


I don't need to directly observe the creation of life, because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the theory of Abiogenesis fit with our observations.

quote:


I never said anything about my opinion. You went off on some weird tangent about history teachers and evolution, and I was trying to make sense of your post in my response. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

quote:


By me. You keep saying I'm wrong without putting forward any evidence as to *why* I'm wrong.

quote:


You didn't address anything, I'm afraid to say.

quote:


Ooh, lovely ad hominem attack. But at any rate-- I do believe that outdated scientific theories ought to be addressed, if only to show why the theory was less correct than later theories. "Intelligent Design," on the other hand, is not scientific, and should be dismissed from classrooms at the first sight of its ugly theological head.

quote:


Science isn't about proving things. Science is about interpreting the facts and creating theories as to why those facts occur, using observations that fit with the fact's effects and its future actions. I've repeatedly told you the theories and backed them up with detailed evidence as to their accuracy. I can't show you abiogenetic formation of life, but I can tell you why it's the most plausible reason for our existence, and evidence that backs it up. But if you choose to not listen to me, I don't really care. The facts exist. The evidence exists. Their existence is not contingent upon your beliefs.

quote:


Of course it's happening right now-- but slowly.

quote:


Speciation of complex eukaryotes takes millions of years. And it doesn't change the fact that whatever species is produced, it comes originally from the common ancestor of all life.

quote:


I have a problem with ignorant theology being passed off as truth by biased instructors who don't care a bit about mixing their personal indoctrination with objective scientific truth.

quote:


Then let me boil it down for you: Fairy tales should not be passed off as truth.

quote:


That is dishonest, deceitful, and lazy.

quote:


Saying that god created all life has no evidence backing it up, brings theological questions into a field of science, and encourages the lazy answer of "goddidit."

quote:


I've been the one bringing all the evidence to the table, whereas you keep saying it's not correct and providing nothing to back you up. I'm less than impressed by your criticism.

quote:


If you came up with a theory that refuted the Darwinian Theory, sure. It'd be a great boon to science if you could back it up. Unfortunately, what you want brought into science departments is thinly veiled theology. It's deceitful to tell impressionable students a lie and pass it off as truth.

quote:


Science is not an "issue," again. It does not demand that a bunch of college kids sit around and give their opinions as to why the Darwinian Theory is icky.

quote:


The Darwinian Theory is the most accurate theory of evolution, and until somebody finds a rabbit in the Precambrian layer, it's the only theory that should be used to teach evolution.

quote:


Oh, is this another one of your "refutations" that coincidentally enough, doesn't have any evidence to back it up?

quote:


Repeating over and over again that you can fly to Venus doesn't make it any more true.

quote:


I would argue that definition you pulled up has nothing to do with science, considering that science doesn't try to investigate the principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But it's a moot point. I don't really care either way.

quote:

Well, I don't have a biology textbook handy, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that it took thousands of years to form a cell. Simpler lifeforms like bacteria reproduce, mutate, and evolve incredibly quickly, so I would imagine that the hypothetical non-living protein replicator mutated and evolved incredibly quickly as well.

quote:

It was an example. The Darwinian Theory is falsifiable-- if we found a complex life form in a period far too early for it to exist, then the Darwinian Theory of Evolution would have to be severely rewritten, or discarded entirely. But nobody's ever found anything remotely disproving the accuracy of the Darwinian Theory. You'd think if god created rabbits at the beginning of the world, we'd find rabbit skeletons in the deepest dig sites. But we haven't! Funny, that.

quote:

"Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. And what common ancestor could we share with bacteria? What could be simpler than a single-celled organism? Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth."

quote:

"Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria.

quote:

Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

think an explanation of Paley and his watch would be justified, but not teaching "ID" or creationism.

Just out of curiousity, do you think string theory should be discussed in science classes?

quote:

What about abiogenesis?

quote:

There's really no substantive way to discuss string theory until grad school in physics (and maybe not even then; I'm not sure I ever learned anything about string theory in a class). I confess that when I taught high school physics, I spent part of a 'dead' day in the schedule (the seniors had already taken their final, but had to be in class) telling my students about particle physics & string theory. But I wouldn't say that string theory "should" be discussed. The debate about string theory hasn't been settled, and it's at so high a level that there's just no point bringing it up in high school or undergraduate physics classes.

quote:

Some sort of discussion is probably warranted like that alluded to here in the forum, when futuredocter37 posted how many "may haves" and "might haves" were included in the textbook discussion of abiogenesis.

"Science doesn't know for certain how life arose, but it might have happened something like this. Okay, now that (one way or another) we've got some life, let's discuss the stuff science does know a lot more about."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And at such a juncture, there is no reason ID couldn't be mentioned.

quote:

As long as no positive arguments are introduced, otherwise the teacher may lose his job.

quote:

I didn’t distort your 'thoughts', I addressed your logic, which is atrocious.

As evolution is not nearly as well established, nor powerfully explanatory, nor straight forward, nor criticial to daily operations as germ theory is, your conclusion is not warranted.

Indeed, your example brings this sharply into focus; as germ theory sufficiently provides a robust explanation for the phenomena it describes, there is really no room nor reason for an alternative explanation; if evolution did the same, it would not need atheists to rally around it.

quote:

Well, good then, we agree; as ID doesn’t attempt to “observe, measured, or quantify” God, it is perfectly viable as a scientific notion.

quote:

Try hard to actually answer the questions.

As neither theory is experimentally validated, would you oppose the discussion of these theories in a classroom until they were?

quote:

Presumably their members pay taxes as well. Shall I let you know where to send your financial contribution?

quote:

Yes. I'm the one with atrocious logic. The man who says that the only reason that evolution is so popular is because atheists are propping it up is calling me illogical.

quote:

Oh, ignoring the fact that atheists make up, what less than ten percent of the population, compared to the seventy-some-odd percent of Christians in the country. Yes. There's some kind of evil conspiracy afoot.

quote:

Evolution is just as "well established" as the Germ Theory.

quote:

I don't know what you meant by the subjective term "well established," but considering that Darwin formulated the theory a good twenty years before John Snow established the formative basis of the Germ Theory, I would argue that the Darwinian Theory is "more established." "Powerfully explanatory" is another one of those subjective terms that I could refute just by saying "I disagree." And "straight-forward?" Organisms mutate. The mutated organisms that aren't well-adjusted die, and the mutants that are well-adapted create well-adapted offspring. Eventually, with enough mutations, a species breaks into another species. It's straight-forward to me.

quote:

And don't give me that "not essential to daily operations" nonsense. Just because something isn't neccesary on a day-to-day basis doesn't mean that it's less valuable. By your logic, pure mathematics and literature are irrelevant for people to learn, because they don't help us on a day-to-day basis. Please.

quote:

Besides, the only reason that the Germ Theory isn't criticized by the religiously blind is because it doesn't stray into killing your sacred cows. If you'd take a look, evolution has just as much proof as the Germ Theory-- but since the Darwinian Theory *dares* to take away what, one of the last remaining neccesities of a god, it has to be wrong. Evolution stands perfectly well, whether the person advocating it is a christian, an atheist, or otherwise. Atheists, however, are more inclined to believe it since we aren't fettered by the raving diktat of a three-thousand year old pounding of the sand, and have no reason not to see it as anything but logical.

quote:

Don't split hairs with me, you disingenuous luddite. "Intelligent Design" works on the assumption that an "intelligent designer" created life, the universe, and everything. An "intelligent designer" is synonymous with a god, which is apparent to everybody from the Supreme Court down to a biology teacher. If it were a truly scientific notion, "Intelligent Design" would give some example as to *why* an "intelligent designer" is neccesary for life to begin, quantify their "intelligent designer" before they used it in arguments, and give an example as to its presence in the evolutionary process.

quote:

I was mentioning that your question was improperly and deceitfully phrased. You were trying to imply that these theories are lies right off the bat, and that their presence in the classroom would be some kind of wrong that would need to be corrected with "Intelligent Design" in the classroom. To repeat what I said, string theory is untested and it would be improper to discuss it in a class dedicated to tested theories. And abiogenesis is a theory that works well with what we've observed and deserves to be discussed in a biology class.

quote:

No, you can just get my tax money from Bush's White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. I'm sure they'd be willing to hurl it at crackpots and their conspiracies.

quote:

I already refuted this.

quote:

See above

quote:

Read my post refuting your interpretations of this.

quote:

ROFLOL. ipso facto, by method of you proclaiming it. Read my post refuting it and expose students to my refutations. Let them decide.

quote:

Because only your interpretation stands.

quote:

Are you going to read my refutations or are you going to keep plugging your ears saying, "you're wrong, you're wrong."

quote:

Depends on how you define "living." The point is that in nature they depend on already existing organisms and if those organisms didn't exist before these replicators, you have no evidence suggesting that these replicators would exist.

quote:

Science welcomes academic freedom. Evolution is anti - scientific because it censors academic freedom.

quote:

Again, in nature it occurs within extant organisms.

quote:

If you assume evolution.

quote:

Assuming evolution is true.

quote:

In nature, they exist within existing organisms.

quote:

Depends on how you define "living" but the point is that they don't exist in nature outside of existing organisms and you have no evidence suggesting that they arise in nature independently of already existing organisms.

quote:

They don't reinforce UCD.

quote:

They fit within your interpretation. Let students be exposed to both sides and let them decide.

quote:

Did you read my post that I linked to?

quote:

Yes I did. Read the posts I linked to.

quote:

Again, your alleged interpretations of the evidence have been refuted. Expose those refutations to students and you are free to criticize them.

quote:

We have never observed UCD. No one has ever observed a molecule evolve into a man, so it is something you are claiming happened in the past.

quote:

Even if true, millions of years is not falsifiable and hence unscientific.

quote:

Just because you label it ignorant doesn't mean its so. Also, scientists are no less bias than anyone else, they are people too.

quote:

So why is evolution passed off as truth at the expense of tax dollars and truth when its not true? Who are you to decide what is true over anyone else and dictate that students should be brainwashed with your opinions of truth while censoring all criticisms and opposing views.

quote:

Restricting academic freedom to promote the atheistic religion at the expense of tax dollars is dishonest.

quote:

Even if true, they don't have to label it "science."

quote:

Have you even read my link?

quote:

Science encourages academic freedom and open inquiry, evolution can't withstand criticism so it censors what science encourages. Evolution is anti - scientific.

quote:

Where did Darwin say a rabbit in the precambrian layer would falsify UCD?

quote:

Darwin himself acknowledged that he got much of his ideas from a creationist in his book.

quote:

The fact that its true makes it true.

quote:

It doesn't?

quote:

Not only illogical, but a bad reader as well. I never said anything about evolution’s ‘popularity’.

quote:

But a surpisingly large portion of evolutionary biologists. Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

Well, no – there is a relatively straight forward experiment we can all do to establish germ theory – no such thing for evolution. And as you are making abundantly clear, evolution isn’t really one thing, but rather a collection of vague things.

quote:

Yeah, if you leave out the development of novel body plans, organs, and complex, interdependent structures. But of course, that would make evolution look bad, so, shhhh…

quote:

I use pure mathematics and I read everyday, as do most people I know; I think that rather proves my point.

quote:

Well, at least you admit the theological implications of evolution – most evolutionists around here try to keep that on the low down.

quote:

Wow, getting a little testy there aren’t we? By the way, I consider luddite a compliment, in keeping with my Wendell Berry-esque view of life.

quote:

Where were we? Oh yes – feel free to make sweeping statements about what intelligent design assumes – none of that denies the fact that intelligence is necessary for the formation of complex interdependent information driven nano-machinery, and no blustering by an evolutionist has ever proven otherwise.

quote:

And in keeping with that, I expect no actual evidence to the contrary from you.

quote:

So if we think it ‘works well’ we can discuss it in class whether or not we have any experimentation or observation to verify it, but if it is ‘untested’ (which is clearly a different case) we shouldn’t discuss it in class.

quote:

This bodes well for your candidacy as Science Pope – your ability to make confident unfounded proclamations should give you a lot of votes in the Holy (sorry – Secular) College.

quote:

That’s where you get your salary…

quote:

Not to mention, personal attacks will probably (eventually) get you banned from here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian

quote:

Not to mention, personal attacks will probably (eventually) get you banned from here.

I do what I must out of love for all humanity.