Darwinism in schools? - Page 46

Farsight001 · #**676** Apr 11, '12, 11:54 am

Once again, buffalo, all you've done is illustrate very well that ID advocates lie about what they are, as though we didn't already know this from their own admission in the Wedge Strategy document.

Farsight001 · #**677** Apr 11, '12, 12:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Understand the idea behind irreducible complexity. Something is IC when its specified function is rendered useless when removing a part.

Which we know is baseless because removing a part does not render something useless. It changes it's function, but does not make it useless.

Quote:

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis with limited variation over and over again.

No it doesn't. This is a lie. This has already been explained to you. Your need to repeat this lie only suggests that you are being willingly dishonest.

Quote:

Nope - genetics is now showing common design. We see the exact same genetic sequences in different areas altogether in different creatures. We see convergent evolution.

And?

Quote:

Junk DNA is now know to be in error. It has been known now for several years.

Another lie that has already been explained to you. Do you understand the concept of honesty and integrity?

LeafByNiggle · #**678** Apr 11, '12, 12:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Does it open the door to Intelligent Design in classrooms? Of course it does. It is a valid criticism.

That is your opinion. Let's see what the school boards and the courts say about it.

LeafByNiggle · #**679** Apr 11, '12, 12:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Definition of Intelligent Design

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature...

Right here is where this definition fails to define a scientific concept. It rests on another undefined term: "evidence of design in nature". So to define intelligent design we have to already know what intelligent design is. This is a circular definition. If you could break out of this cycle and define intelligent design in terms that already have scientifically understood meaning, then I would be happy to see it. Note: I am not even attacking the substance of intelligent design because you can't attack the substance of a concept that is not clearly defined. It is too much of a moving target.

By the way, the language of ID is eerily similar to that used by Scientology to describe their "E-meter" and how it measures human clarity.

Biblepoe · #**680** Apr 11, '12, 12:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Is this an argument from popularity?

If ~99.9999% of PhD biologists believe something within biology that they have extensively studied, there is probably very convincing evidence for what it is they believe. Do you seriously believe it is likely that many PhD biologists could be so mistaken or dishonest with regard to the most important idea in their own field?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Understand the idea behind irreducible complexity. Something is IC when its specified function is rendered useless when removing a part.

That definition of irreducible complexity is completely irrelevant because, as Farsight001 has already mentioned, functions change. For example, many biologists believe that mitochondria (organelles that are used for cellular metabolism) used to be bacteria.

The rest of your post I find to be dishonest and/or borne out of willful ignorance.

**edwest2** · #**681** Apr 11, '12, 1:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

That is your opinion. Let's see what the school boards and the courts say about it.

Obviously, you didn't read the link I provided earlier. The majority of science teachers do not boldly proclaim the theory. That's the point. And no court will force them to change their views.

Peace,
Ed

Farsight001 · #**682** Apr 11, '12, 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Obviously, you didn't read the link I provided earlier. The majority of science teachers do not boldly proclaim the theory. That's the point. And no court will force them to change their views.

Peace,
Ed

A loaded study. There are hundreds of reasons a high school biology teacher might not want to teach evolution in high school, among which is fear of loss of job at a religiously-run high school, as well as the belief that a basic overview of biology is best and evolution involves too much detail.

Regardless, those who teach creationism or ID in the classroom should be fired for breaking their teacher's oath and for lying to their students.

**buffalo** · #**683** Apr 11, '12, 1:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biblepoe

If ~99.9999% of PhD biologists believe something within biology that they have extensively studied, there is probably very convincing evidence for what it is they believe. Do you seriously believe it is likely that many PhD biologists could be so mistaken or dishonest with regard to the most important idea in their own field?

That definition of irreducible complexity is completely irrelevant because, as Farsight001 has already mentioned, functions change. For example, many biologists believe that mitochondria (organelles that are used for cellular metabolism) used to be bacteria.

The rest of your post I find to be dishonest and/or borne out of willful ignorance.

Yup - it has happened in the past where 99% of scientist believed something only to wake up the next day and have it overturned.

Read it again: Something is IC when its specified function is rendered useless when removing a part.

Be careful you don't make the case for common design.

All they have to do is show the evolutionary pathways needed to get there and how.

Sources? Show me living fossils are not evidence of stasis.

Show me your current source that show junk DNA is still valid.

Baelor · #**684** Apr 11, '12, 1:53 pm

Buffalo, please define "kind" for us. IDvolution depends on the definition of this concept, and you have refused to answer this question but are now posting again.

LeafByNiggle · #**685** Apr 11, '12, 1:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Obviously, you didn't read the link I provided earlier. The majority of science teachers do not boldly proclaim the theory. That's the point. And no court will force them to change their views.

Do you mean "boldly proclaim" the theory of evolution? Science teachers are not supposed to "boldly" proclaim anything. "Boldly" is an adjective you normally associate with issues of morality or religion. So the fact that science teachers are not proclaiming evolution "boldly" is not surprising or relevant. Even if, as you said earlier, many science teachers are outright avoiding teaching evolution, that has nothing to do with the bill in question. That bill would not protect a teacher for leaving out part of the curriculum.

My reference to the courts was in anticipation of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a teacher who wanted to teach ID. If the specific bill in question were used as a defense, then those supporting that teacher would have to prove that teaching ID was "helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." That is point at which the court would have to decide, your view on ID not withstanding. The court would not change the teacher's view. But they may very well uphold the decision of the school board to punish said teacher.

Farsight001 · #**686** Apr 11, '12, 2:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Yup - it has happened in the past where 99% of scientist believed something only to wake up the next day and have it overturned.

99.9999% is different from 99%. Find a case where 99.9999% changed their mind overnight. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Read it again: Something is IC when its specified function is rendered useless when removing a part.

Which doesn't make sense, as was explained to you! There is no logical reason to restrict it to the same function it had previously.

Quote:

Sources? Show me living fossils are not evidence of stasis.

Not how it works. The burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence that there was a stasis.

Quote:

Show me your current source that show junk DNA is still valid.

Perhaps if you knew what junk DNA actually was, this would the a fruitful effort, but since you haven't a clue and can't even properly define it, let alone properly define "ID" or "kind" or any number of other terms, it's pointless - like trying to teach Calculus to someone who doesn't know how to add yet.

**edwest2** · #**687** Apr 11, '12, 4:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

Right here is where this definition fails to define a scientific concept. It rests on another undefined term: "evidence of design in nature". So to define intelligent design we have to already know what intelligent design is. This is a circular definition. If you could break out of this cycle and define intelligent design in terms that already have scientifically understood meaning, then I would be happy to see it. Note: I am not even attacking the substance of intelligent design because you can't attack the substance of a concept that is not clearly defined. It is too much of a moving target.

By the way, the language of ID is eerily similar to that used by Scientology to describe their "E-meter" and how it measures human clarity.

Your last statement is nonsense. The concept is clear: life forms look designed because they are designed. From the back cover of the book: Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson.

"Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain's principles. Yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life's information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification."

Can anyone here show a conspiracy that is a direct result of the Wedge Document? Is there evidence for this?

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #**688** Apr 11, '12, 4:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

Do you mean "boldly proclaim" the theory of evolution? Science teachers are not supposed to "boldly" proclaim anything. "Boldly" is an adjective you normally associate with issues of morality or religion. So the fact that science teachers are not proclaiming evolution "boldly" is not surprising or relevant. Even if, as you said earlier, many science teachers are outright avoiding teaching evolution, that has nothing to do with the bill in question. That bill would not protect a teacher for leaving out part of the curriculum.

My reference to the courts was in anticipation of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a teacher who wanted to teach ID. If the specific bill in question were used as a defense, then those supporting that teacher would have to prove that teaching ID was "helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." That is point at which the court would have to decide, your view on ID not withstanding. The court would not change the teacher's view. But they may very well uphold the decision of the school board to punish said teacher.

You're not referring to the article again. Today, right now, any teacher in the United States could hear out and encourage discussion from any student that Intelligent Design is worthy of consideration from the standpoint that life forms are obviously designed. And the student would be able to support his argument from the existing literature on the subject.

No lawsuits need to be involved since, as the article I linked to clearly stated, some teachers are already teaching Creationism.

Peace,
Ed

Biblepoe · #**689** Apr 11, '12, 4:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Yup - it has happened in the past where 99% of scientist believed something only to wake up the next day and have it overturned.

Name one time in the past ~150 years when ~99.9999% of scientist believe something central within their own field that they studied extremely extensively because they thought the evidence was extremely convincing, to "wake up the next day and have it overturned".

Scientists change their minds all the time due to new data, but when it is this conclusive, it has never happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Read it again: Something is IC when its specified function is rendered useless when removing a part.

Again, I'll remind you that whether or a thing's current function is rendered useless by removing a part is irrelevant to evolution and common decent, because functions change all the time and things don't just have one 'specified function' which they have to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Sources? Show me living fossils are not evidence of stasis.

Show me your current source that show junk DNA is still valid.

I already gave you sources and you ignored them. Why should I bother giving you more sources if you just stick bananas in your ears and ignore the ones you are given?

**buffalo** · #**690** Apr 11, '12, 4:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biblepoe

Name one time in the past ~150 years when ~99.9999% of scientist believe something central within their own field that they studied extremely extensively because they thought the evidence was extremely convincing, to "wake up the next day and have it overturned".

Scientists change their minds all the time due to new data, but when it is this conclusive, it has never happened.

Again, I'll remind you that whether or a thing's current function is rendered useless by removing a part is irrelevant to evolution and common decent, because functions change all the time and things don't just have one 'specified function' which they have to do.

I already gave you sources and you ignored them. Why should I bother giving you more sources if you just stick bananas in your ears and ignore the ones you are given?

It is happening right now.
Not to mince words - the modern synthesis is gone"

Check out the story behind J Harlen Bretz.

Are you now admitting my explanation of IC?

What happens when the ATP synthase motor stops working?

I addressed the sources- did you miss it?

But you did not answer these:

Sources? Show me living fossils are not evidence of stasis.

Show me your current source that show junk DNA is still valid.