How have anti-evolution tactics evolved over time? They’ve gotten sneakier.

[Wyatt earp]

Republicans think scientists are stupid because they haven't figured out everything. But the gulf between what Republicans imagine and what Scientists know is staggering.

Maybe one day liberals will learn from science that a fetus becomes a baby and not a lolly pop.

Doubt it though

 

[Conservative65]

Republicans think scientists are stupid because they haven't figured out everything. But the gulf between what Republicans imagine and what Scientists know is staggering.

If those scientists are so smart, why haven't any of them been able to show me an actual photo of my grandfather they claim I evolved from 20,000 generations ago? I need the actual photo. Until they can provide that, they imagine whatever they claim.

A "photo" from 20,000 generations ago???? OK, you're a stupid shit. We cal all agree on that.

No different than the request by people like you that ask for a type of proof you know can't be provided.

 

[Conservative65]

Republicans think scientists are stupid because they haven't figured out everything. But the gulf between what Republicans imagine and what Scientists know is staggering.

Why is everything with you broken down into Republican and Democrat? It's as if you don't understand the whole world are not partisan hacks like you. People have different ways of thinking and their thoughts are not couched in what political party they support... generally speaking.

I would argue that Scientists don't "KNOW" anything. It's impossible to KNOW. All we can do is BELIEVE we know. How many examples do I need to give for things that we surely thought we KNEW but turned out, we didn't KNOW? Science gets things wrong all the time... in fact, that's kind of the point OF science, to explore possibilities. Whenever you believe Science has solved a riddle or answered a question.. that very moment of conclusion is when you abandoned Science and adopted FAITH. You now have a FAITH in something and are not practicing the Scientific Method any longer. Science simply can't do anything with Conclusion.

Because Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian who wants to teach magical creation in public schools. They want their children to be tards. Got it?

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

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

Wow, we are almost as stupid as Turkey.

Seems your parents wanted a retard and got one.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Republicans think scientists are stupid because they haven't figured out everything. But the gulf between what Republicans imagine and what Scientists know is staggering.

Why is everything with you broken down into Republican and Democrat? It's as if you don't understand the whole world are not partisan hacks like you. People have different ways of thinking and their thoughts are not couched in what political party they support... generally speaking.

I would argue that Scientists don't "KNOW" anything. It's impossible to KNOW. All we can do is BELIEVE we know. How many examples do I need to give for things that we surely thought we KNEW but turned out, we didn't KNOW? Science gets things wrong all the time... in fact, that's kind of the point OF science, to explore possibilities. Whenever you believe Science has solved a riddle or answered a question.. that very moment of conclusion is when you abandoned Science and adopted FAITH. You now have a FAITH in something and are not practicing the Scientific Method any longer. Science simply can't do anything with Conclusion.

Because Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian who wants to teach magical creation in public schools. They want their children to be tards. Got it?

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

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

Wow, we are almost as stupid as Turkey.

Ahh... So this all boils down to your desire to teach your "Religion of Science" to the kids? That is, this stupidity that Science is some sort of immutable truth that cannot be challenged. Well guess what? Not everyone believes in YOUR religion. Some of us believe Science is the study of questioning and challenging what we think we know. It's not some sort of weapon we use to destroy Christian religion. Evolution does not explain ORIGIN of anything. We don't even have proof that evolution is correct.... but if Darwin was 100% right (he's not) it still doesn't have a damn thing to do with how life originated. THAT theory is very much open for debate and has not been determined. Among numerous competing theories is the theory life was created by an intelligent designer. You may disagree with that theory and that is fine, but to insist we cannot teach it IS one of the theories to kids studying this in school is outrageous. Since when do we censor knowledge and think that is good? Oh yeah... when we want to indoctrinate and brainwash people into a single monolithic view. No thanks!

I don't want kids being proselytized to in schools but that includes YOUR proselytizing as well. I want them to be given ALL the information in an objective and non-biased way and they can make their own minds up as to what they believe. Perhaps one of those kids will grow up to answer the question of how life originated by challenging what we think we know?

As for your stats about Scientists being democrats... Does it not register to you that most of them depend on government grants from Democrats? They're another one of the little pet special interest groups getting a piece of the $1.6 trillion deficit every year so they will keep your idiotic party relevant. Most of our national debt problem can be fixed by eliminating Democrat extortion money being paid out to keep groups loyal and beholden to Democrats.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It has no explanatory power, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable- all properties of a true scientific theory. It's creationism masked in scientific language, not scientific principles. It may be true, but it is not science.

A conservative, Christian judge appointed by a born-again Christian POTUS settled that in the Kitz-Miller v Dover School Board case. The ID-proponent school board was ousted by a predominantly Christian conservative community in the election in Dover after attempting to force ID in the school science curriculum.

 

[Boss]

Republicans think scientists are stupid because they haven't figured out everything. But the gulf between what Republicans imagine and what Scientists know is staggering.

Why is everything with you broken down into Republican and Democrat? It's as if you don't understand the whole world are not partisan hacks like you. People have different ways of thinking and their thoughts are not couched in what political party they support... generally speaking.

I would argue that Scientists don't "KNOW" anything. It's impossible to KNOW. All we can do is BELIEVE we know. How many examples do I need to give for things that we surely thought we KNEW but turned out, we didn't KNOW? Science gets things wrong all the time... in fact, that's kind of the point OF science, to explore possibilities. Whenever you believe Science has solved a riddle or answered a question.. that very moment of conclusion is when you abandoned Science and adopted FAITH. You now have a FAITH in something and are not practicing the Scientific Method any longer. Science simply can't do anything with Conclusion.

Because Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian who wants to teach magical creation in public schools. They want their children to be tards. Got it?

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

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

Wow, we are almost as stupid as Turkey.

Ahh... So this all boils down to your desire to teach your "Religion of Science" to the kids? That is, this stupidity that Science is some sort of immutable truth that cannot be challenged. Well guess what? Not everyone believes in YOUR religion. Some of us believe Science is the study of questioning and challenging what we think we know. It's not some sort of weapon we use to destroy Christian religion. Evolution does not explain ORIGIN of anything. We don't even have proof that evolution is correct.... but if Darwin was 100% right (he's not) it still doesn't have a damn thing to do with how life originated. THAT theory is very much open for debate and has not been determined. Among numerous competing theories is the theory life was created by an intelligent designer. You may disagree with that theory and that is fine, but to insist we cannot teach it IS one of the theories to kids studying this in school is outrageous. Since when do we censor knowledge and think that is good? Oh yeah... when we want to indoctrinate and brainwash people into a single monolithic view. No thanks!

I don't want kids being proselytized to in schools but that includes YOUR proselytizing as well. I want them to be given ALL the information in an objective and non-biased way and they can make their own minds up as to what they believe. Perhaps one of those kids will grow up to answer the question of how life originated by challenging what we think we know?

As for your stats about Scientists being democrats... Does it not register to you that most of them depend on government grants from Democrats? They're another one of the little pet special interest groups getting a piece of the $1.6 trillion deficit every year so they will keep your idiotic party relevant. Most of our national debt problem can be fixed by eliminating Democrat extortion money being paid out to keep groups loyal and beholden to Democrats.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It has no explanatory power, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable- all properties of a true scientific theory. It's creationism masked in scientific language, not scientific principles. It may be true, but it is not science.

A conservative, Christian judge appointed by a born-again Christian POTUS settled that in the Kitz-Miller v Dover School Board case. The ID-proponent school board was ousted by a predominantly Christian conservative community in the election in Dover after attempting to force ID in the school science curriculum.

We were talking about Republicans in general and now you're talking about a school district in Pennsylvania. In that case, a small group of young earth creationists sought to have their version of ID taught as an "alternative view" to Darwinian evolution. I agree with the finding, I don't want ID taught as an alternative to Evolution. I want Evolution to be taught as a theory... which is what it is. Parts of it have unexplained gaps and no scientific support. With our growing understanding of DNA, it's not sure how much of it is even valid anymore. Regardless, the theories on ORIGIN have nothing to do with theory of evolution.

On ORIGIN there are numerous theories, none of them are provable, observable, testable, etc. They remain open hypotheses.... maybe this is the subject that biology teachers can deal with the differences in unproven hypothesis and theory? In any event, this is where ID belongs, along side Abiogenesis as a possible explanation for origin. And it doesn't need to be the YEC version or any religious version, it can be presented clinically on the merits of science. Irreducible complexity, the watchmaker analogy, etc. Whether you accept it or not, it IS information and SHOULD be taught. We should never censor information in the name of education.

What we continue to see in the teaching of Science, is an ever-growing secular left presence who want to teach Darwinian evolution as FACT and imply that it disproves God or Creation. Unless you believe life has always existed or some unexplained supernatural fantasy, life has to be the product of some creating force... because it does exist. Therefore, ANY theory on origin is a theory of creationism... it has to be. Whether the creation was by some anomaly of physical nature or through an intelligent designer, is a question science can't answer. It shouldn't be teaching one thing as a fact and another thing can't even be mentioned.

 

[mamooth]

No different than the request by people like you that ask for a type of proof you know can't be provided.

Oh, you poor addled thing. The point apparently went right over your head.

Nobody can provide proof for Odin, or Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hence you don't believe.

You can't provide any proof for your particular god ... yet you do believe.

Why the double standard on your part, where out of the near-infinite number of deities out there, only your favorite deity is excused from needing proof?

 

[mamooth]

Whether you accept it or not, it IS information and SHOULD be taught.

While your "It could have been done by magic!" theory technically is information, it's also really freakin' stupid information. We don't teach stupid, not for evolution, not for any science. Hence, your special pleading fallacy of "I demand special treatment for my pet stupid theory!" fails.

We censor stupid. Proudly. Get over it.

What we continue to see in the teaching of Science, is an ever-growing secular left presence who want to teach Darwinian evolution as FACT and imply that it disproves God or Creation.

No, that's more of your endless string of paranoid conspiracy theories.

Unless you believe life has always existed or some unexplained supernatural fantasy, life has to be the product of some creating force... because it does exist.

That makes no sense. Just more "It could be magic!" stupidity on your part. Hence, nobody cares. Deal with it.

 

[Conservative65]

No different than the request by people like you that ask for a type of proof you know can't be provided.

Oh, you poor addled thing. The point apparently went right over your head.

Nobody can provide proof for Odin, or Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hence you don't believe.

You can't provide any proof for your particular god ... yet you do believe.

Why the double standard on your part, where out of the near-infinite number of deities out there, only your favorite deity is excused from needing proof?

No double standard here. I apply the same standard the monkey believers follow when they say because I can't provide the type proof they need, my God doesn't exist. However, when I apply the same standard when they can't provide a type of proof I want, suddenly that's not how things should be done.

 

[Boss]

While your "It could have been done by magic!" theory technically is information, it's also really freakin' stupid information.

But that's not my theory or the information in question. Irreducible complexity is very much a legitimate paradox and if you don't believe it, read Darwin's Origin of the Species.

 

[Boss]

Unless you believe life has always existed or some unexplained supernatural fantasy, life has to be the product of some creating force... because it does exist.

That makes no sense. Just more "It could be magic!" stupidity on your part. Hence, nobody cares. Deal with it.

Makes perfect sense if you follow logic. Do we exist? Yes. Have we always existed? Not unless you believe in the supernatural. Therefore, we can conclude that at some point we came into existence. Obviously, if we didn't exist and then we did... something must have created us. Pure logic.

Now... there can be a wide-ranging debate over WHAT created us... no argument there. Some people say it was cosmic circumstance... chance... randomness... whatever. Others believe it was from an intelligent designer... Still, others believe it was some force of energy we don't comprehend as of yet. But the debate over whether or not we were the product of a creation event is indisputable unless you believe in supernatural fantasy or eternal life.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

While your "It could have been done by magic!" theory technically is information, it's also really freakin' stupid information.

But that's not my theory or the information in question. Irreducible complexity is very much a legitimate paradox and if you don't believe it, read Darwin's Origin of the Species.

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

 

[Boss]

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

With all due respect, a scientist with anything involving ID theory won't get within 50 miles of a peer-reviewed publication. The science community tends to be very averse to theories associated with spiritual faith. And that is fine, I think that's probably how it should be. But we have to remember that just because physical science doesn't want to look at something, doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue.

One of the best examples I can think of is the discovery of bacteria. When the first scientists found this, they were largely dismissed by the scientific community. It was considered irrational... supernatural... not something to be taken seriously as science. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that surgeons wash their hands between digging around in cadavers and operating on live humans... his ideas were kooky and crazy... they locked him up in an insane asylum. Years later, they discovered that ...hey, he was right... who woulda thunk it?

Another example is the Big Bang theory.... Did you know that "Big Bang" was actually a pejorative term used to mock the theory in the early days? Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

Irreducible complexity, from my understanding, is very simple. In fact, the first mention of it is by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species, not Dr. Behe. A system that is interdependent upon itself cannot evolve in stages. It simply doesn't function without all it's parts and there is no logical explanation for how all the parts could know what they were developing into.

I have many problems with Darwin's theories because Darwin didn't have all the information in 1859. He lived in a time where a cell was about as complicated as a ping pong ball. We didn't even know what "atoms" were... which is another thing scientists debated for years. The thing you have to realize about Science is, it never stops asking questions or exploring possibilities. MAN draws conclusions. Then we adopt a faith around our conclusions. This is the antithesis of science.

 

[Boss]

Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

I want to go back to this and emphasis something before it's just shrugged off as usual... IF we were on a message board in 1901... I would be here posting that we should teach school children about the theory that our universe began in a giant explosion and you would be here calling me ridiculous because my theory hadn't been peer-reviewed and published. You would mock my idea and joking call it "the big bang theory" as you and your scientific buddies chortled and dismissed me as a kook. This would have gone on for years... much longer than Dr. Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument.

We would be inundated with thread after thread and page after page of arguments and rejections over this theory and how it did not conform to anything science thought it knew at the time. You would rhetorically ask me... what was here BEFORE this Big Bang? And of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you and you'd think that must mean that I am off my rocker to think such a thing. For months... years... we would go at it back and forth... you condemning my view and me insisting there was some validity to the argument.

So while you sit here and categorically dismiss ID theory, keep that in mind. Science is constantly discovering things that change the way we understand our universe.

 

[sealybobo]

1) Theories of Evolution have nothing to do with how life originated.

2) No scientific evidence exists of any cross-genus evolution.

3) Unless you believe in supernatural fantasy, the physical universe and life is the product of creation.

Rdean tries to explain it to you and yet you just blow it off?

Creation is the fantasy.

So did the first man start off as men or babies? Please explain how the first humans got started.

 

[sealybobo]

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

With all due respect, a scientist with anything involving ID theory won't get within 50 miles of a peer-reviewed publication. The science community tends to be very averse to theories associated with spiritual faith. And that is fine, I think that's probably how it should be. But we have to remember that just because physical science doesn't want to look at something, doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue.

One of the best examples I can think of is the discovery of bacteria. When the first scientists found this, they were largely dismissed by the scientific community. It was considered irrational... supernatural... not something to be taken seriously as science. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that surgeons wash their hands between digging around in cadavers and operating on live humans... his ideas were kooky and crazy... they locked him up in an insane asylum. Years later, they discovered that ...hey, he was right... who woulda thunk it?

Another example is the Big Bang theory.... Did you know that "Big Bang" was actually a pejorative term used to mock the theory in the early days? Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

Irreducible complexity, from my understanding, is very simple. In fact, the first mention of it is by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species, not Dr. Behe. A system that is interdependent upon itself cannot evolve in stages. It simply doesn't function without all it's parts and there is no logical explanation for how all the parts could know what they were developing into.

I have many problems with Darwin's theories because Darwin didn't have all the information in 1859. He lived in a time where a cell was about as complicated as a ping pong ball. We didn't even know what "atoms" were... which is another thing scientists debated for years. The thing you have to realize about Science is, it never stops asking questions or exploring possibilities. MAN draws conclusions. Then we adopt a faith around our conclusions. This is the antithesis of science.

But science has ruled out your theory as impossible illogical unless you accept the creation story where a God waved its hand and made it so.

 

[Boss]

Creation is the fantasy.

No... Creation is a FACT unless you believe in A.) Eternal life or B.) Supernatural magic.


You can debate WHAT created us... but we do exist and we're not eternal.

 

[Boss]

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

With all due respect, a scientist with anything involving ID theory won't get within 50 miles of a peer-reviewed publication. The science community tends to be very averse to theories associated with spiritual faith. And that is fine, I think that's probably how it should be. But we have to remember that just because physical science doesn't want to look at something, doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue.

One of the best examples I can think of is the discovery of bacteria. When the first scientists found this, they were largely dismissed by the scientific community. It was considered irrational... supernatural... not something to be taken seriously as science. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that surgeons wash their hands between digging around in cadavers and operating on live humans... his ideas were kooky and crazy... they locked him up in an insane asylum. Years later, they discovered that ...hey, he was right... who woulda thunk it?

Another example is the Big Bang theory.... Did you know that "Big Bang" was actually a pejorative term used to mock the theory in the early days? Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

Irreducible complexity, from my understanding, is very simple. In fact, the first mention of it is by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species, not Dr. Behe. A system that is interdependent upon itself cannot evolve in stages. It simply doesn't function without all it's parts and there is no logical explanation for how all the parts could know what they were developing into.

I have many problems with Darwin's theories because Darwin didn't have all the information in 1859. He lived in a time where a cell was about as complicated as a ping pong ball. We didn't even know what "atoms" were... which is another thing scientists debated for years. The thing you have to realize about Science is, it never stops asking questions or exploring possibilities. MAN draws conclusions. Then we adopt a faith around our conclusions. This is the antithesis of science.

But science has ruled out your theory as impossible illogical unless you accept the creation story where a God waved its hand and made it so.

No... Science doesn't "rule out" anything... EVER. Only a human can do that.

 

[sealybobo]

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

With all due respect, a scientist with anything involving ID theory won't get within 50 miles of a peer-reviewed publication. The science community tends to be very averse to theories associated with spiritual faith. And that is fine, I think that's probably how it should be. But we have to remember that just because physical science doesn't want to look at something, doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue.

One of the best examples I can think of is the discovery of bacteria. When the first scientists found this, they were largely dismissed by the scientific community. It was considered irrational... supernatural... not something to be taken seriously as science. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that surgeons wash their hands between digging around in cadavers and operating on live humans... his ideas were kooky and crazy... they locked him up in an insane asylum. Years later, they discovered that ...hey, he was right... who woulda thunk it?

Another example is the Big Bang theory.... Did you know that "Big Bang" was actually a pejorative term used to mock the theory in the early days? Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

Irreducible complexity, from my understanding, is very simple. In fact, the first mention of it is by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species, not Dr. Behe. A system that is interdependent upon itself cannot evolve in stages. It simply doesn't function without all it's parts and there is no logical explanation for how all the parts could know what they were developing into.

I have many problems with Darwin's theories because Darwin didn't have all the information in 1859. He lived in a time where a cell was about as complicated as a ping pong ball. We didn't even know what "atoms" were... which is another thing scientists debated for years. The thing you have to realize about Science is, it never stops asking questions or exploring possibilities. MAN draws conclusions. Then we adopt a faith around our conclusions. This is the antithesis of science.

But science has ruled out your theory as impossible illogical unless you accept the creation story where a God waved its hand and made it so.

No... Science doesn't "rule out" anything... EVER. Only a human can do that.

And a gun can't kill anyone. Only a human can do that.

 

[sealybobo]

While your "It could have been done by magic!" theory technically is information, it's also really freakin' stupid information.

But that's not my theory or the information in question. Irreducible complexity is very much a legitimate paradox and if you don't believe it, read Darwin's Origin of the Species.

Irreducible complexity is a "god of the gaps" argument: it says: we don't understand yet how this particular feature came about therefore: God did it.

In cases such as the bacteria flagellum, Dr. Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity, we see similar protein structures on different bacteria but with different purposes. For example, with the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, the protein structure that makes up the flagellum is missing some of the parts but acts as a secretory appendage.

With the blood clot cascade, another Behe example of irreducible complexity, in whales and dolphins we observe a reduced complexity and yet clotting still happens.

Just because something "seems" irreducibly complex or designed does not necessarily negate 150 years of evolutionary science. Evolutionary theories have been challenged more vigorously than any other and yet are still the current predominant scientific paradigm.

If Intelligent Design proponents want to be taken seriously by the science community, they need to produce research, conduct experiments which demonstrate the predictions of ID, and publish these findings in peer-reviewed papers. Then, instead of having to go around or avoid the scientific community by using politics to get ID taught in schools, it will simply be the predominant theory taught in schools.

I'm trying to explain to boss how every animal that needs parents to survive must have evolved from a previous species that didn't.

If evolution isn't right then God put two adult humans on earth ready to mate and who instinctively knew how to survive.

If not, were the first humans babies?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Scientists did not want to accept that the universe had a beginning because THAT implies a creation. They wanted to cling to the opinion that the universe had always existed. They called it the "Steady State" model and they held on to this well into the 20th century until the background radiation we discovered pretty much concluded there was a Big Bang event.

I want to go back to this and emphasis something before it's just shrugged off as usual... IF we were on a message board in 1901... I would be here posting that we should teach school children about the theory that our universe began in a giant explosion and you would be here calling me ridiculous because my theory hadn't been peer-reviewed and published. You would mock my idea and joking call it "the big bang theory" as you and your scientific buddies chortled and dismissed me as a kook. This would have gone on for years... much longer than Dr. Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument.

We would be inundated with thread after thread and page after page of arguments and rejections over this theory and how it did not conform to anything science thought it knew at the time. You would rhetorically ask me... what was here BEFORE this Big Bang? And of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you and you'd think that must mean that I am off my rocker to think such a thing. For months... years... we would go at it back and forth... you condemning my view and me insisting there was some validity to the argument.

So while you sit here and categorically dismiss ID theory, keep that in mind. Science is constantly discovering things that change the way we understand our universe.

I can't speculate as to how I would react to the Big Bang Theory 100 years ago, you may be right because I am automatically skeptical of everything. At the same time, I do not immediately discount new ideas.

Intelligent Design does not, for me, stand on its own merits. Like I wrote earlier: it has no explanatory power, it makes no predictions, and it can not be falsified.

Irreducible complexity is only an apparent property, and not necessarily a fact. Not yet, anyway. The fallacy of irreducible complexity is that it is a "god of the gaps" argument and that does not lend itself to it's credence.

Furthermore, ID proponents do not produce any research and, I must disagree with you here, were ID proponents to actually do any of the work required by science and there was validity to ID, their papers would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Such work would be groundbreaking and no scientific journal would refuse to publish it out of fear of controversy - the controversy would sell!

Intelligent Design intrinsically can not be scientific because who ever the intellgent designer is can not be tested in a lab, observed under a microscope or through a telescope, and inference is not enough on its own to fully elevate an hypothesis to a theory.

There are other problems I have with ID that aren't just its scientific merits. That its proponents attempt to circumvent the scientific process, that its proponents in ID textbooks simply replaced the word "creation" with" intelligent design" makes ID nothing more than creationism masquerading in scientific language, and that in order for ID to be a science would require a broadening of the definition of science in such a way that astrology would fit the new definition.

I agree with you that ID could be true, but it isn't science.

And were Darwin alive today, he would find the theories of evolution so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable. Darwinian evolution has evolved into modern evolutionary theories.