| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2004 02:04:22 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
Scientists say nothing new has been added to the design claim
By MICHAEL STRAND
Salina Journal
Most people aren.t scientists but nonetheless accept scientific orthodoxy,
such as evolution.
Without being able to explain the details, they accept that humans evolved
from earlier species without supernatural assistance.
Ask those same folks if an ion-powered rotary engine could evolve, and
they.ll snicker.
Show them that the little whips . the technical term is .flagellum. . some
bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines
capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of
intricate combinations of protein molecules.
Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have evolved?
Board of Evolution?
That question is a big one . maybe the central one . in the State Board of
Education campaign in north-central Kansas. The primary election is
Tuesday.
Incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina ran for the state board in 2000, partially
on a platform of reversing the board.s controversial 1999 decision to
reduce the role of evolution in our public schools. science classrooms.
That was done, and now Wyatt is challenged by retired teacher Kathy Martin
of Clay Center, who has pledged to work to reinstate those 1999 standards.
Those standards, she said .de-emphasized teaching monkey-to-man evolution
as fact..
The field is one in which a Ph.D. is a starting point.
Neither Wyatt nor Martin is a scientist.
Wyatt said this past week that the question is a complex academic issue
and that the board should .trust the experts, the scientists we asked to
come up with the standards..
Martin, however, says that .many. scientists now question evolution and
that new advances in biochemistry and mathematics suggest alternative
conclusions. Those alternative theories, especially .intelligent design,.
she maintains, should have a fair hearing.
--------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.saljournal.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2763/format/html/displaystory.html
or http://tinyurl.com/6prpt
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Jake" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
01 Aug 2004 03:14:16 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.58.0408010308420.25247@darwin.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
Scientists say nothing new has been added to the design claim
By MICHAEL STRAND
Salina Journal
Most people aren.t scientists but nonetheless accept scientific orthodoxy,
such as evolution.
Without being able to explain the details, they accept that humans evolved
from earlier species without supernatural assistance.
Ask those same folks if an ion-powered rotary engine could evolve, and
they.ll snicker.
Show them that the little whips . the technical term is .flagellum. . some
bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines
capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of
intricate combinations of protein molecules.
Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have evolved?
Board of Evolution?
That question is a big one . maybe the central one . in the State Board of
Education campaign in north-central Kansas. The primary election is
Tuesday.
Incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina ran for the state board in 2000, partially
on a platform of reversing the board.s controversial 1999 decision to
reduce the role of evolution in our public schools. science classrooms.
That was done, and now Wyatt is challenged by retired teacher Kathy Martin
of Clay Center, who has pledged to work to reinstate those 1999 standards.
Those standards, she said .de-emphasized teaching monkey-to-man evolution
as fact..
The field is one in which a Ph.D. is a starting point.
Neither Wyatt nor Martin is a scientist.
Wyatt said this past week that the question is a complex academic issue
and that the board should .trust the experts, the scientists we asked to
come up with the standards..
Martin, however, says that .many. scientists now question evolution and
that new advances in biochemistry and mathematics suggest alternative
conclusions. Those alternative theories, especially .intelligent design,.
she maintains, should have a fair hearing.
--------------------------------------
Has anyone tried suing these fools? Damages could include the salary
difference between a ditch-digger and a PhD molecular biologist...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
01 Aug 2004 04:22:42 AM |
|
|
"Jake" <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote in message
news:cei98j$178p$1@news.fsr.net...
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.58.0408010308420.25247@darwin.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
Scientists say nothing new has been added to the design claim
By MICHAEL STRAND
Salina Journal
Most people aren.t scientists but nonetheless accept scientific
orthodoxy,
such as evolution.
Without being able to explain the details, they accept that humans
evolved
from earlier species without supernatural assistance.
Ask those same folks if an ion-powered rotary engine could evolve, and
they.ll snicker.
Show them that the little whips . the technical term is .flagellum. .
some
bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines
capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of
intricate combinations of protein molecules.
Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have
evolved?
Board of Evolution?
That question is a big one . maybe the central one . in the State Board
of
Education campaign in north-central Kansas. The primary election is
Tuesday.
Incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina ran for the state board in 2000,
partially
on a platform of reversing the board.s controversial 1999 decision to
reduce the role of evolution in our public schools. science classrooms.
That was done, and now Wyatt is challenged by retired teacher Kathy
Martin
of Clay Center, who has pledged to work to reinstate those 1999
standards.
Those standards, she said .de-emphasized teaching monkey-to-man
evolution
as fact..
The field is one in which a Ph.D. is a starting point.
Neither Wyatt nor Martin is a scientist.
Wyatt said this past week that the question is a complex academic issue
and that the board should .trust the experts, the scientists we asked to
come up with the standards..
Martin, however, says that .many. scientists now question evolution and
that new advances in biochemistry and mathematics suggest alternative
conclusions. Those alternative theories, especially .intelligent
design,.
she maintains, should have a fair hearing.
--------------------------------------
Has anyone tried suing these fools? Damages could include the salary
difference between a ditch-digger and a PhD molecular biologist...
Could just parachute Lenny in. I'm sure he's up for the fight
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
01 Aug 2004 04:52:37 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.58.0408010308420.25247@darwin.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
Scientists say nothing new has been added to the design claim
By MICHAEL STRAND
Salina Journal
Most people aren.t scientists but nonetheless accept scientific orthodoxy,
such as evolution.
Without being able to explain the details, they accept that humans evolved
from earlier species without supernatural assistance.
Ask those same folks if an ion-powered rotary engine could evolve, and
they.ll snicker.
Show them that the little whips . the technical term is .flagellum. . some
bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines
capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of
intricate combinations of protein molecules.
Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have evolved?
Board of Evolution?
That question is a big one . maybe the central one . in the State Board of
Education campaign in north-central Kansas. The primary election is
Tuesday.
Incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina ran for the state board in 2000, partially
on a platform of reversing the board.s controversial 1999 decision to
reduce the role of evolution in our public schools. science classrooms.
That was done, and now Wyatt is challenged by retired teacher Kathy Martin
of Clay Center, who has pledged to work to reinstate those 1999 standards.
Those standards, she said .de-emphasized teaching monkey-to-man evolution
as fact..
The field is one in which a Ph.D. is a starting point.
Neither Wyatt nor Martin is a scientist.
Wyatt said this past week that the question is a complex academic issue
and that the board should .trust the experts, the scientists we asked to
come up with the standards..
Martin, however, says that .many. scientists now question evolution and
that new advances in biochemistry and mathematics suggest alternative
conclusions. Those alternative theories, especially .intelligent design,.
she maintains, should have a fair hearing.
This is the same tired creationist apologetics we have heard before and seen
rejected in Kansas, Ohio and Minnesota. I agree that creationism and
intelligent design should get a "fair hearing", but they have had several
years now to produce the science that could convince the majority of real
scientists working in the field that there was something to it. But they
have produced exactly nothing of substance in the refereed literature.
Therefore it has no place in the classroom.
How many of Martin's "many" scientists are named Steve?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
--------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.saljournal.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2763/format/html/displaystory.html
or http://tinyurl.com/6prpt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
01 Aug 2004 03:53:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
Scientists say nothing new has been added to the design claim
By MICHAEL STRAND
Salina Journal
Most people aren.t scientists but nonetheless accept scientific orthodoxy,
such as evolution.
Without being able to explain the details, they accept that humans evolved
from earlier species without supernatural assistance.
Ask those same folks if an ion-powered rotary engine could evolve, and
they.ll snicker.
Show them that the little whips . the technical term is .flagellum. . some
bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines
capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of
intricate combinations of protein molecules.
Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have evolved?
Board of Evolution?
That question is a big one . maybe the central one . in the State Board of
Education campaign in north-central Kansas. The primary election is
Tuesday.
Incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina ran for the state board in 2000, partially
on a platform of reversing the board.s controversial 1999 decision to
reduce the role of evolution in our public schools. science classrooms.
That was done, and now Wyatt is challenged by retired teacher Kathy Martin
of Clay Center, who has pledged to work to reinstate those 1999 standards.
Those standards, she said .de-emphasized teaching monkey-to-man evolution
as fact..
The field is one in which a Ph.D. is a starting point.
Neither Wyatt nor Martin is a scientist.
Wyatt said this past week that the question is a complex academic issue
and that the board should .trust the experts, the scientists we asked to
come up with the standards..
Martin, however, says that .many. scientists now question evolution and
that new advances in biochemistry and mathematics suggest alternative
conclusions. Those alternative theories, especially .intelligent design,.
she maintains, should have a fair hearing.
--------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.saljournal.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2763/format/html/displaystory.html
or http://tinyurl.com/6prpt
J. Spaceman
Creationism's a load of bollocks.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
01 Aug 2004 06:47:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination of
stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a "stork-sperm/ovum"
debate over gynaecology,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
02 Aug 2004 09:50:59 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<1empg0918al2spkjt7gv68g0lkbjvsohuj@4ax.com>...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination of
stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a "stork-sperm/ovum"
debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"? I don't see why design
and evolution have to be in conflict. It seems that even certain
proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, accept large
swaths of the theory of evolution. I certainly believe the theory of
evolution largely represents the best natural explanation of the
available evidence. The problem arises from issues of the fine tuning
of the universe, the difficult to accept notion of a universe that
just popped out of nothing uncaused, and even abiogenesis. Now I agree
that a supernatural explanation does not have much of a place in a
scientific inquiry, but it is worthwhile to debate this issue of
whether there is philosophical justification for the belief that the
universe (or entities within the universe) are designed. I don't see
why concluding that there was a designer negates the possibility that
our biodiversity is due to hereditary change over time (evolution).
Hence the "sperm/ovum vs design" analogy above. It is not inconsistent
to say I was made by God, but I am the result of the meeting of sperm
and ovum...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
28 Aug 2004 10:42:31 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0408020659.5bd5c4d2@posting.google.com...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<1empg0918al2spkjt7gv68g0lkbjvsohuj@4ax.com>...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination of
stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a "stork-sperm/ovum"
debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"? I don't see why design
and evolution have to be in conflict. It seems that even certain
proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, accept large
swaths of the theory of evolution. I certainly believe the theory of
evolution largely represents the best natural explanation of the
available evidence. The problem arises from issues of the fine tuning
of the universe, the difficult to accept notion of a universe that
just popped out of nothing uncaused, and even abiogenesis. Now I agree
that a supernatural explanation does not have much of a place in a
scientific inquiry,
Does that in and of itself mean it cannot be fact?
but it is worthwhile to debate this issue of
whether there is philosophical justification for the belief that the
universe (or entities within the universe) are designed. I don't see
why concluding that there was a designer negates the possibility that
our biodiversity is due to hereditary change over time (evolution).
Hence the "sperm/ovum vs design" analogy above. It is not inconsistent
to say I was made by God, but I am the result of the meeting of sperm
and ovum...
I have yet to meet the average adult who will argue that he was made
by God.
Dr. Wood
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
02 Aug 2004 11:25:06 AM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<1empg0918al2spkjt7gv68g0lkbjvsohuj@4ax.com>...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded
imagination of stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be
like a "stork-sperm/ovum" debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"? I don't see
why design and evolution have to be in conflict. It seems that
even certain proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael
Behe, accept large swaths of the theory of evolution. I
certainly
believe the theory of evolution largely represents the best
natural explanation of the available evidence. The problem
arises from issues of the fine tuning of the universe, the
difficult to accept notion of a universe that just popped out
of nothing uncaused, and even abiogenesis. Now I agree
that a supernatural explanation does not have much of a
place in a scientific inquiry, but it is worthwhile to debate
this
issue of whether there is philosophical justification for the
belief that the universe (or entities within the universe) are
designed. I don't see why concluding that there was a
designer negates the possibility that our biodiversity is due
to hereditary change over time (evolution). Hence the
"sperm/ovum vs design" analogy above. It is not
inconsistent to say I was made by God, but I am the result
of the meeting of sperm and ovum...
It seems to me that any argument which is based on the difficulty
of accepting an uncaused universe, or abiogenesis, or unthinking
natural processes producing living thinking beings, can only
replace those notions with something just as difficult to accept
or more so; i.e. an uncaused god, an intelligent creator.
Invoking an uncaused god does not help much if your difficulty
with a naturalistic universe is its uncaused existence.
Similarly, if your difficulty with the origin of living species
is that it's hard to imagine complexity and intelligence arising
out of chaos and simple physical laws, then positing a
pre-existing intelligence without accounting for its existence
doesn't really resolve this difficulty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
04 Aug 2004 11:01:06 AM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<1empg0918al2spkjt7gv68g0lkbjvsohuj@4ax.com>...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
Evolution-design debate rages on
Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:00 am
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination
of stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a
"stork-sperm/ovum" debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"?
What part of "there's nothing to debate," do you *not* understand,
moron?
[snip drivel]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
02 Aug 2004 10:34:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:50:59 +0000 (UTC),
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination of
stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a "stork-sperm/ovum"
debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"? I don't see why design
and evolution have to be in conflict. It seems that even certain
proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, accept large
swaths of the theory of evolution. I certainly believe the theory of
evolution largely represents the best natural explanation of the
available evidence. The problem arises from issues of the fine tuning
of the universe, the difficult to accept notion of a universe that
just popped out of nothing uncaused, and even abiogenesis. Now I agree
that a supernatural explanation does not have much of a place in a
scientific inquiry, but it is worthwhile to debate this issue of
whether there is philosophical justification for the belief that the
universe (or entities within the universe) are designed. I don't see
why concluding that there was a designer negates the possibility that
our biodiversity is due to hereditary change over time (evolution).
Hence the "sperm/ovum vs design" analogy above. It is not inconsistent
to say I was made by God, but I am the result of the meeting of sperm
and ovum...
That approach gets cut out by Occams Razor. It's a bit like claiming
that angels help the planets round in their orbits. It is adding
unnecessary entities (and you can go on adding them infinitely) and
adds nothing to the explanation.
And ID is a catch-all hypothesis because according to it there is
nothing that is not Intelligently Designed. It purports to explain the
complex but also explains the simple. Since it explains everything it
actually explains nothing.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution-design debate rages on |
02 Aug 2004 06:19:00 PM |
|
|
William <telige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:50:59 +0000 (UTC),
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
The is no "evolution-design" debate outside the deluded imagination of
stupd religious fundamentalists. It would be like a "stork-sperm/ovum"
debate over gynaecology,
Or how about a "sperm/ovum vs design debate"? I don't see why design
and evolution have to be in conflict. It seems that even certain
proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, accept large
swaths of the theory of evolution. I certainly believe the theory of
evolution largely represents the best natural explanation of the
available evidence. The problem arises from issues of the fine tuning
of the universe, the difficult to accept notion of a universe that
just popped out of nothing uncaused, and even abiogenesis. Now I agree
that a supernatural explanation does not have much of a place in a
scientific inquiry, but it is worthwhile to debate this issue of
whether there is philosophical justification for the belief that the
universe (or entities within the universe) are designed. I don't see
why concluding that there was a designer negates the possibility that
our biodiversity is due to hereditary change over time (evolution).
Hence the "sperm/ovum vs design" analogy above. It is not inconsistent
to say I was made by God, but I am the result of the meeting of sperm
and ovum...
That approach gets cut out by Occams Razor. It's a bit like claiming
that angels help the planets round in their orbits. It is adding
unnecessary entities (and you can go on adding them infinitely) and
adds nothing to the explanation.
More to the point, it is like saying that angels help the planets in
their orbits, but that they *happen to exactly match Newton's and
Kepler's Laws all the time* without exception... any hypothesis that is
empirically eqivalent but adds unnecessary entities will be eliminated.
And ID is a catch-all hypothesis because according to it there is
nothing that is not Intelligently Designed. It purports to explain the
complex but also explains the simple. Since it explains everything it
actually explains nothing.
William
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
