| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 12:07:09 PM |
| Object: |
Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
From the article:
-------------------------------
Evolution is adequate to explain many of the puzzles of how living things
develop. It is not a complete theory, and possibly it can never be to the
satisfaction of all parties to this controversy. But it is simply mindless for
boards of education to pose a theory of intelligent design to compete with
evolution in the biology textbooks. For one thing, what if there are three or
three thousand or three million plausible explanations for the riddles of life?
Many advocates of creationist theory are quite sincere in their beliefs. They
are entitled to hold those beliefs if they wish. But they have no business
trying to bootstrap their religious beliefs into an educational system which at
its best does not do an adequate job in science education.
-------------------------------
Read it at
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050126/OPINION02/501260302/-1/OPINION
or http://tinyurl.com/66jy5
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
26 Jan 2005 12:26:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:07:09 -0500 in talk.origins, Jason Spaceman
(Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>) said, directing
the reply to talk.origins, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism talk.origins
From the article:
-------------------------------
Evolution is adequate to explain many of the puzzles of how living things
develop. It is not a complete theory, and possibly it can never be to the
satisfaction of all parties to this controversy. But it is simply mindless for
boards of education to pose a theory of intelligent design to compete with
evolution in the biology textbooks. For one thing, what if there are three or
three thousand or three million plausible explanations for the riddles of life?
Many advocates of creationist theory are quite sincere in their beliefs. They
are entitled to hold those beliefs if they wish.
Which raises an interesting point or two! Well, *I* think it's
interesting!
What I wonder is the process of belief formation with respect to those
who hold to a creationist position? Is creationism adopted because
it's supportive of other beliefs, or are other beliefs adopted as the
consequence of creationism? More generally without purported divine
revelation, could creationism have ever come to be a position in the
first place?
But they have no business
trying to bootstrap their religious beliefs into an educational system which at
its best does not do an adequate job in science education.
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
26 Jan 2005 02:13:52 PM |
|
|
I think it is an interesting question - to put it another way
assumptions that result in our conclusions about origins operate on an
unconscious level. I couldn't agree more with Jason that religion
should not be introduced into the science classroom. But you can't
have it both ways. Science does not address origins unless you hold
the assumption that present observed processes are also the processes
of bringing everything into existence. If anything has been observed,
it is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are alive and
well, and no exceptions have been observed whether on a cosmic or
atomic level. Nothing in observed science supports a naturalistic
origin of the universe. If in the classroom, science classes were
restricted to what is observed, there would be no controversy. It is
evident from the current controversy that the only thing you are not
allowed to be a skeptic about is the theory of evolution - it is not be
questioned or doubted. As a theory, it has attained the status of a
religion.. A theory explains how something may have happened. We are
now at the place where honest people must admit we can't explain how
evolution could have happened, but we all agree it did. Dogma!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
26 Jan 2005 09:07:12 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1106748832.693431.17590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Nothing in observed science supports a naturalistic
origin of the universe. If in the classroom, science classes were
restricted to what is observed, there would be no controversy.
How would you define "observed" in the context of science?
It is
evident from the current controversy that the only thing you are not
allowed to be a skeptic about is the theory of evolution - it is not be
questioned or doubted. As a theory, it has attained the status of a
religion.. A theory explains how something may have happened. We are
now at the place where honest people must admit we can't explain how
evolution could have happened, but we all agree it did. Dogma!
Wrong! Intelligent Design Creationists are doubting and questioning the
theory of evolution all the time. They are publishing books and magazine
articles, holding meetings and making videos. Nobody's stopping them. In
fact they are doing just about everything - except proposing a testable
theory and conducting actual research. I wonder why that is?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 01:32:11 AM |
|
|
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory? By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:37:15 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1106875931.826441.269280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
He did no such thing. In spite of the allegation, no IDC proponent has yet
shown that students are being taught the theory of evolution as dogma. In
fact, on the basis of anecdotal evidence here as well the standard of
scientific knowledge being shown by some people in Dover and other areas,
far from being taught as dogma evolution is not being taught at all even
where there are no stickers or announcements. There is apparently an
insidious, creeping censorship of evolution theory in schools through
intimidation by a sort of fundamentalist Mafia. Science teachers fear for
their jobs if they even mention the word in class. And the people who do
this claim to be Christian.
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory? By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
The theory of evolution, being a true scientific theory, is both testable
and has been tested in various ways. Genetic mutation has been observed,
variation within species has been observed and speciation itself has been
observed. The predominant colour of the peppered moth has been observed to
vary in response to environmental changes. Bacteria have been observed to
develop resistance to antimicrobial agents.
As for the Second law of Thermodynamics, I suggest you look at the
explanations given in the Talk.Origins Archive, in particular those by
chemist Frank Lambert. Anyone who suggest that life and evolution violate
the Law does not understand it.
Consider this, if you showed a snowflake to someone who had never seen one,
they might assume from its symmetry, regularity, intricacy or complexity
that it must have been designed. Yet it is the product of the intrinsic
properties of hydrogen and oxygen at certain temperatures and under certain
atmospheric conditions. Even more, this order and complexity appears when
heat energy is apparently being withdrawn from the system. Snowflakes
form, if I remember correctly, when warm, moist air in which the water is
in a disordered state meets much colder air. In other words, cooling or
withdrawing heat from a disordered system leads to the formation of order
and complexity, in spite of your claim that natural processes without
exception move from order and complexity to randomness.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 02:38:00 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 17:32:11 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
why not question chemistry with alchemy? why only evolution?
answer: because the questioning is religious, not secular.
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory?
it does not take millions of years to unfold.
By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
even an intelligence can not violate the laws of thermo. that's why ID
makes no sense. it says intelligence created without the use of
natural law
that has NEVER been seen. not once.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 10:44:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory? By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
Did you notice that you tacitly assumed that evolution doesn't work,
in order to prove that evolution doesn't work?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 01:42:46 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled
it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
theyll be let in the classroom when theyve proven themselves to the
scientific community. all science must go through this process,
evolution just the same. ID wants to skip over it because they know
they have no case to present.
and you know just as well as we do that the case had nothing to do with
"thinking critically" about evolution. the judge's statements are open
for the public to read, and the judge himself is a christian.
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory? By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is
a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
1 outside energy: what do you call that flaming yellow ball outside
your window 12 hours a day?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:01:21 AM |
|
|
First, I think the case has everything to do with teaching students to
think critically rather than being indoctrinated in a theory.
Secondly, the universe is a closed system. Our solar system is not.
But let's grant you that the sun is an outside source supplying energy
to the earth. That is not enough. Don't forget the second condition -
a code, photsynthesis. Merely supplying energy to a pile of bricks -
say drop a bomb on them - will not produce a building. That energy
must be channeled through an intelligent plan to produce complexity and
not chaos. In fact, energy without the blueprint, will increase
entropy - accelerate the chaos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 02:40:06 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 20:01:21 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
First, I think the case has everything to do with teaching students to
think critically rather than being indoctrinated in a theory.
Secondly, the universe is a closed system. Our solar system is not.
But let's grant you that the sun is an outside source supplying energy
to the earth. That is not enough.
why not?
Don't forget the second condition -
a code, photsynthesis. Merely supplying energy to a pile of bricks -
say drop a bomb on them - will not produce a building.
dropping a bomb DOES produce order. creationists forget entropy is a
STATE function...the difference between starting and ending states. we
can look at an explosion and tell one has taken place. if it was
completely random that would not be possible.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 09:33:50 PM |
|
|
You can tell that the explosion has taken place by the disorder
standing out in contrast to the order surrounding it. No further
comment. Let the reader judge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 10:27:35 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 13:33:50 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
You can tell that the explosion has taken place by the disorder
standing out in contrast to the order surrounding it. No further
comment. Let the reader judge.
really? how would you distinguish that vs a hurricane or tornado?
answer: an explosion creates order.
in addition, you put a bomb in a car in the desert. you take another
car and have it go thru a hurricane. both destroyed. but you'd be able
to tell the difference. why? different characteristics. different
order.
so the creationist dogma that an explosion doesnt create order is
wrong.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
31 Jan 2005 03:07:36 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
You can tell that the explosion has taken place by the disorder
standing out in contrast to the order surrounding it. No further
comment. Let the reader judge.
Yes indeed. I think by now, most rational, intelligent readers will
have judged you quite accurately and come to the inescapable conclusion
that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
To the trained observer, an explosion produces an orderly pattern of
debris. Individual fragments are sorted, according to the laws of
physics. If a crater is left it has a regular distinctive shape, even
if there is no crater the explosion leaves distinctively shaped
markings on surfaces present at the exact site of the explosion.
As Bob rightly pointed out, if there were no such orderly and
predictable signature patterns to trace, then forensic scientists would
not be able to determine if a bomb had even gone off at all.
In fact, if there WAS total and absolute disorder in the debris, it
might just as well have been the hand of God, smiting evil-doers, for
all they would be able to determine.
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"'God' as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every
valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the
Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this
world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world
contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap
from existence to a 'super-existence'." -- [Leonard Peikoff, "The
Philosophy of Objectivism"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 05:04:05 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
Steve wrote:
Ian, not in the American classroom they aren't. A jjudge has ruled
it
is unconstitutional to even tell students to think critically about
evolution!
theyll be let in the classroom when theyve proven themselves to the
scientific community. all science must go through this process,
evolution just the same. ID wants to skip over it because they know
they have no case to present.
and you know just as well as we do that the case had nothing to do with
"thinking critically" about evolution. the judge's statements are open
for the public to read, and the judge himself is a christian.
Are you implying that evolution, which takes a few million years to
unfold, is a testable theory? By observed science, I mean that from
natural processes, without exception, we observe that the universe is
a
closed system, i.e. energy is neither created nor destroyed in any
observable process whether atomic, chemical, physical, etc. and
futhermore, again without exception, that in each of these processes
there is a movement from order and complexity to randomness. every
scientific observation made tells us to go from random chaos to order
and complexity requires: 1/outside energy 2/an intelligent code or
blueprint to direct that energy.
1 outside energy: what do you call that flaming yellow ball outside
your window 12 hours a day?
It's a bar sign. Got them to turn off the outdoor speakers for
the juke box, though.
Are you saying that booze is an organizing energy? Never worked
that way for me.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 01:43:18 AM |
|
|
and 2 blueprint to direct: what do you call natural selection?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:09:48 AM |
|
|
natural selection sounds like a reasonable mechanism on the surface,
especially when you are as ignorant of genetics as Darwin was. Now we
know that mutations are required, which are 99.9% of the time harmful
(entropy again). There might be a change in the environment
coincidentally in a billion years that occurs simultaneously with a
mutation so that the result is beneficial. So let's be generous -
after only a million years a spider mutates and develops the ability to
spin a web. It catches its first fly and rushes out to eat it. Too
bad, but the oil glands haven't mutated in its feet. It gets stuck in
its own web and becomes extinct and that's the end of your spider. You
can't circumvent the first and second laws! They'll get you sooner or
later, and evolution posits plenty of time for it to be got!! The
effect of entropy mathematically increases over time, not decreases.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 11:06:48 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in
natural selection sounds like a reasonable mechanism on the surface,
especially when you are as ignorant of genetics as Darwin was. Now we
know that mutations are required, which are 99.9% of the time harmful
(entropy again).
Idiot. Where'd you get this figure from?
There might be a change in the environment
coincidentally in a billion years that occurs simultaneously with a
mutation so that the result is beneficial. So let's be generous -
after only a million years a spider mutates and develops the ability to
spin a web. It catches its first fly and rushes out to eat it. Too
bad, but the oil glands haven't mutated in its feet. It gets stuck in
its own web and becomes extinct and that's the end of your spider. You
can't circumvent the first and second laws! They'll get you sooner or
later, and evolution posits plenty of time for it to be got!! The
effect of entropy mathematically increases over time, not decreases.
Only if you assume facts not in evidence. Mutations rarely, if ever, result
in a complete whole new being. That's the straw man you're arguing against.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 02:42:14 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 20:09:48 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
natural selection sounds like a reasonable mechanism on the surface,
especially when you are as ignorant of genetics as Darwin was. Now we
know that mutations are required, which are 99.9% of the time harmful
(entropy again). There might be a change in the environment
coincidentally in a billion years that occurs simultaneously with a
mutation so that the result is beneficial.
ever see how many organisms in a population have mutations?
about all of them. 99.9% harmful? 1/1000 will be beneficial. and
evolution predicts that will spread so that in a few generations it
will not be 1/1000 but 1/2 or perhaps 2/3.
So let's be generous -
after only a million years a spider mutates and develops the ability to
spin a web. It catches its first fly and rushes out to eat it. Too
bad, but the oil glands haven't mutated in its feet. It gets stuck in
its own web and becomes extinct and that's the end of your spider. You
can't circumvent the first and second laws! They'll get you sooner or
later, and evolution posits plenty of time for it to be got!! The
effect of entropy mathematically increases over time, not decreases.
your math is wrong.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:28:29 AM |
|
|
Please cite the research that states mutations are 99.9% of the time
harmful, since you state that 'we know that'.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 05:32:39 AM |
|
|
Jay, ask any evolutionary biologist whom you trust. It's basic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 06:14:02 AM |
|
|
It's not basic. Steve, you made the claim, you have to back it up.
There is a society of people in the south pacific who have 6 fingers on
each hand. True or false? It's my claim, but I'm asking you to verify
it.
But I'll play your game. I IM'd my neice who just got her Ph.D. in
biochemestry last year and is working on her post-doc on STDs. She
told me that the statement "99.9% of all mutations are harmful" is
total fiction. Also, a quick check in the TO archives yields the
following article. Feel free to read it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1.
That is a site I trust. Note the references at the bottom.
Now where is your evidence that the claim is true.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 06:43:06 AM |
|
|
Jay, it's a good article. Good job. I want to look into it some more.
If I'm wrong on this, I'll concede the point. But give me a day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 11:08:52 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message news
Jay, it's a good article. Good job. I want to look into it some more.
If I'm wrong on this, I'll concede the point. But give me a day.
Make it too. While your at it, your PhD thesis please?
moo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 05:11:01 AM |
|
|
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> on 27 Jan 2005 20:09:48 -0800 spoke:
natural selection sounds like a reasonable mechanism on the surface,
especially when you are as ignorant of genetics as Darwin was.
Show us how YOU'RE smarter than Darwin was. Please...
--
The truth is out there,
but it's not interesting enough for most people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:20:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:07:12 -0000, "Ian H Spedding"
<harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1106748832.693431.17590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Nothing in observed science supports a naturalistic
origin of the universe. If in the classroom, science classes were
restricted to what is observed, there would be no controversy.
How would you define "observed" in the context of science?
It is
evident from the current controversy that the only thing you are not
allowed to be a skeptic about is the theory of evolution - it is not be
questioned or doubted. As a theory, it has attained the status of a
religion.. A theory explains how something may have happened. We are
now at the place where honest people must admit we can't explain how
evolution could have happened, but we all agree it did. Dogma!
Wrong! Intelligent Design Creationists are doubting and questioning the
theory of evolution all the time. They are publishing books and magazine
articles, holding meetings and making videos. Nobody's stopping them. In
fact they are doing just about everything - except proposing a testable
theory and conducting actual research. I wonder why that is?
Terminal dishonesty and the great ignorant and superstitious
multitudes consider the I.D. ***** to be smorgasbord and eat
heartily.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
27 Jan 2005 02:20:02 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 06:13:52 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> said in
alt.atheism:
of bringing everything into existence. If anything has been observed,
it is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are alive and
well, and no exceptions have been observed whether on a cosmic or
atomic level. Nothing in observed science supports a naturalistic
origin of the universe.
Evidence that the laws of thermodynamics don't break down at the
singularity?
If in the classroom, science classes were
restricted to what is observed, there would be no controversy.
Nor would there be any science education.
It is evident from the current controversy that the only thing you are not
allowed to be a skeptic about is the theory of evolution
The only thing you're not allowed to be skeptical about is fact.
Evolution is a fact. Theories of evolution change.
A theory explains how something may have happened. We are
now at the place where honest people must admit we can't explain how
evolution could have happened, but we all agree it did.
We KNOW how it HAPPENS. We observe it happening every day. What the
heck are you talking about? Not evolution, that's for sure.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:21:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:20:02 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 06:13:52 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> said in
alt.atheism:
of bringing everything into existence. If anything has been observed,
it is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are alive and
well, and no exceptions have been observed whether on a cosmic or
atomic level. Nothing in observed science supports a naturalistic
origin of the universe.
Evidence that the laws of thermodynamics don't break down at the
singularity?
If in the classroom, science classes were
restricted to what is observed, there would be no controversy.
Nor would there be any science education.
It is evident from the current controversy that the only thing you are not
allowed to be a skeptic about is the theory of evolution
The only thing you're not allowed to be skeptical about is fact.
Evolution is a fact. Theories of evolution change.
A theory explains how something may have happened. We are
now at the place where honest people must admit we can't explain how
evolution could have happened, but we all agree it did.
We KNOW how it HAPPENS. We observe it happening every day. What the
heck are you talking about? Not evolution, that's for sure.
At best, Steve is greviously uneducated.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 02:06:58 AM |
|
|
What are you calling evolution? If you mean adaption, genetic
mutations, variation within genetic limits, we observe it, and I'm not
aware of anyone who questions it. If you mean invertebrates become
fish, fish become birds, birds become mammals, amoeba become people,
inanimate matter became life and you postulate that happened but it
required millions upon millions of years - your postulate is not
observable.
If you believe that the laws of thermodynamics break down at some
point, you are a great man of faith and you will have to take that on
faith, not science. You certainly are not a skeptic, but a man of
faith when you assert evolution is a fact though the theory changes.
The dilemma is that a theory is supposed to explain how something
happened - which it did nicely for Darwin being igorant of genetics and
assuming the cell to be very simple. Now there is no mechanism that
can explain the development of order and complexity. Yes, theories
change, but the devil is in the details. We don't know how evolution
could have happened but we are sure it did. Faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 06:28:26 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1106878018.470292.122170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What are you calling evolution? If you mean adaption, genetic
mutations, variation within genetic limits, we observe it, and I'm not
aware of anyone who questions it. If you mean invertebrates become
fish, fish become birds, birds become mammals, amoeba become people,
inanimate matter became life and you postulate that happened but it
required millions upon millions of years - your postulate is not
observable.
There is, in most mammals, a gene (the GULO or LGGLO gene) which codes for
an enzyme that, with three other enzymes, produces vitamin C. Humans have
no functional copy of this gene, but have a disabled version (a
"pseudogene"). This is why humans get scurvy if they don't get enough fruit
in their diet. Now, it's odd enough, if you don't infer that humans are
descended from some mammalian species with a functional version of the gene.
What's odder is that chimps, orangutans, macaques -- every ape and old world
monkey that's been tested, in fact -- has a GULO pseudogene, disabled the
same way as the human pseudogene. These primates don't need to make their
own vitamin C, since they get enough from fruit in their diets, so an
ancient mutation that disabled the gene would have been selectively neutral,
not harmful.
The same principle, presumably, is why guinea pigs -- which eat a lot of
fruit -- also have a GULO pseudogene, and can get scurvy without fruit, but
the guinea pig GULO pseudogene is disabled differently from the primate
version. Among primates, the pseudogene differs from species to species
more than most genes (which would make sense, if it did little or nothing --
there's no selective pressure for or against any variant). The most similar
versions to the human GULO pseudogene are found in chimps, with orangutans a
bit less similar, and monkeys less similar still. All this is quite
consistent with inheritance of the pseudogene from a common ancestor with
other primates.
Note that the GULO pseudogene provides a test of common descent. It would
be problematic for common descent if, e.g. the human GULO pseudogene were
more similar to the macaque pseudogene than to the chimp pseudogene. It
would be even worse if, e.g. chimps had a functional GULO gene, while humans
and monkeys didn't, or if the human GULO pseudogene were more similar to
that of guinea pigs than to that of any primate.
There are a host of such genetic markers of common ancestry -- pseudogenes,
endogenous retroviruses, and other bits of noncoding DNA shared between
different "kinds" in the same nested hierarchy pattern as other, obviously
functional features. Note that pseudogenes are a sort of vestigial
structure, and, as with other vestigial structures, it is conceivable that
they still serve some function. But they don't serve the function of the
genes that they obviously resemble (that is, they lack at least some of the
functions of their homologues in allied species), so their close resemblence
to those genes demands an explanation, which evolution provides.
Note that the genetic sequences are observable, in the sense that any
molecular structure is observable. The processes of mutation and
inheritance of mutant genes is observable -- that is, observed processes can
account for the distribution of these pseudogenes, if we infer branching
descent with modification from common ancestors.
If you believe that the laws of thermodynamics break down at some
point, you are a great man of faith and you will have to take that on
faith, not science. You certainly are not a skeptic, but a man of
faith when you assert evolution is a fact though the theory changes.
The dilemma is that a theory is supposed to explain how something
happened - which it did nicely for Darwin being igorant of genetics and
assuming the cell to be very simple. Now there is no mechanism that
can explain the development of order and complexity. Yes, theories
change, but the devil is in the details. We don't know how evolution
could have happened but we are sure it did. Faith.
The laws of thermodynamics pretty clearly don't prevent development,
reproduction, mutation, or natural selection, since all these things go on
all the time. Physicists seem pretty certain that they don't prevent the
sun from shining for billions of years, or prevent life from existing (with
individual organisms developing, reproducing, passing on the occasional
mutant gene, and so forth) over that time. They evidently don't prevent
genes from being duplicated, or the duplicate genes aquiring their own
mutations, coming to code for enzymes with different properties from the
ancestral gene. In short, there's no discernable reason they have to break
down in order for evolution to occur.
Darwin was, of course, ignorant of genetics. Whether he assumed the cell to
be simple or complex I do not know; I recall no statement on the matter from
his writings. But oddly, what is now known of genetics suggests it has just
the properties needed for Darwin's theory to work.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 10:47:35 AM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID>
Darwin was, of course, ignorant of genetics. Whether he assumed the cell
to be simple or complex I do not know; I recall no statement on the matter
from his writings. But oddly, what is now known of genetics suggests it
has just the properties needed for Darwin's theory to work.
Lucky stiff. If evidence arises that he made a determining statement on
this, that would be significant. If idiot IDers haven't fond it, I won't
hold my breath.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
