DescentBB

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/kshb/home/ ... 90,00.html

Maybe they got the message...

Bettina

Darwin

Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in science lessons, according to the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21 ... t_science/

... and this isn't the only website I've read this on, for all you non-believers!

bait++

Iâ??m all in favor of teaching children myths as fact. I mean what's the big deal? No Santa Claus for you jimmy.

Killjoys.

good for KU.

Intelligent design advocate John Calvert said equating intelligent design to mythology is to label advocates as religious nuts

Could not have said it better myself. Glad to see Kansas is trying to rid themselves of the dumbest state tag...

TheCope wrote:Iâ??m all in favor of teaching children myths as fact. I mean what's the big deal? No Santa Claus for you jimmy.

Killjoys.

Science teaches wrongfully that neo-darwinism is indeed fact when they skip the truth that it's just a theory, Galileo set out to prove that the ptolemaic theorys were false, sadly nowadays people just listen to anything and accept it as backed up truth, galileo was ostricized for it and made to seem like he didnt know what he was talking about, much like people that try to disprove people in favor of the intelligent design idea.

So to be at least fair the smartest idea would be to not act like what you condemn your opposite of, being unopen to other idea then your own.

As it is i dont believe the neo-darwinism theory is backed up at all enough to even come near to the soliditude of the intelligent design idea, Even darwin himself said the human eye is too complex in function to be a product of happenstance such as selective species forwarding.

Behemoth wrote:

TheCope wrote:Iâ??m all in favor of teaching children myths as fact. I mean what's the big deal? No Santa Claus for you jimmy.

Killjoys.

Science teaches wrongfully that neo-darwinism is indeed fact when they skip the truth that it's just a theory, Galileo set out to prove that the ptolemaic theorys were false, sadly nowadays people just listen to anything and accept it as backed up truth, galileo was ostricized for it and made to seem like he didnt know what he was talking about, much like people that try to disprove people in favor of the intelligent design idea.

So to be at least fair the smartest idea would be to not act like what you condemn your opposite of, being unopen to other idea then your own.

As it is i dont believe the neo-darwinism theory is backed up at all enough to even come near to the soliditude of the intelligent design idea, Even darwin himself said the human eye is too complex in function to be a product of happenstance such as selective species forwarding.

there is an invisible intelligence at work...we just have to discover it.

I totally agree.

Behemoth wrote:, Even darwin himself said the human eye is too complex in function to be a product of happenstance such as selective species forwarding.

Not really. This is taken out of context, see here.

dissent wrote:

Behemoth wrote:, Even darwin himself said the human eye is too complex in function to be a product of happenstance such as selective species forwarding.

Not really. This is taken out of context, see here.

"seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Behemoth wrote:"seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

As I said, this was taken out of context. Please take the trouble to read the discussion here, or the entire chapter 6 of the "Origin of Species" listed here. You will find there what you quoted, as well as the following

Charles Darwin wrote:Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.(emphases mine)

If you'll read the entire context, you'll see that what Darwin said was the exact opposite of your

Behemoth wrote:Even darwin himself said the human eye is too complex in function to be a product of happenstance such as selective species forwarding.

.

QED

Dissent quoting Darwin wrote:yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.(emphases mine)

Which is the origin of Behe's title for his book. "Darwin's Black Box". With high level organs like an eye, we can imagine possible pathways to it's development that do not violate the rules of evolution. (That each step must provide some kind of advantage). Darwin lays out one such possible, and with what he knew quite plausible, pathway to the eye.

The problem lies in that Darwin (and all of the biologist of his day) knew very little about the internal workings of the cell. It was just a black box, assumed to be simple in structure and easy to evolve. We now know much much MORE about the cell. And the problem is that we no longer have a "simple" black box at the bottom of our evolutionary chain. We have very complex molecular machinery. As I said once before, A light sensitive cell requires a very specific chain of chemical reactions. A very COMPLEX chain of reactions. So now you can't just say, "assume a light sensitive spot", you have to say, "Assume the molecules 11-cis-retinal, rhodopsin, transducin, phosphodiesterase, and cyclicGMP all evolved simultaneously and in the right places and with the correct support structure..." Because nothing LESS then that works. Anyone interested can check out http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm For a much more detailed, but still very simplistic explanation of how "simple" a light sensitive spot is.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT denying evolution. And I am NOT arguing that if we don't understand something, we must attribute it to Divine intervention. Quite the opposite on both of these points.

The theory of evolution by natural selection REQUIRES that each step in the chain have some advantage over the previous steps. Now, you might keep around a detrimental mutation for a little while, but unless it has some other advantage to counteract the disadvantage, natural selection will select AGAINST it. That's how natural selection WORKS.
We DO find in nature, even within the molecular machinery of the cell, many structures that could have been evolved in the "step by step" method, with each step having an advantage, BUT, we also find structures that could not. They don't fit within the requirements of Natural Selection.

And that's not an argument from ignorance, we KNOW how the flagellum works now. We can identify every molecule in it's structure. And because we know how it works, we know that there is no way to "work up" to it. It's an all or nothing organ, and therfore outside of the conditions for Natural Selection.

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:It's an all or nothing organ, and therfore outside of the conditions for Natural Selection.

Absolutely. Another prime example of an "all or nothing" organ is the avian lung. This unique organ is one of the most complex structures and can only operate in it's current form, which is nothing like the lungs of mammals or reptiles - there have not been found any procedural lungs that could be tagged as a transition between any other type. So the question arises then, if evolution is the gradual process by which creatures mutate step-by-step, how does one explain the step-by-step development of the avian lung, which can only work in it's current, final form? Because of the way it is designed, any deviantion from it's current form will cause it to NOT function.

Kilarin wrote:The theory of evolution by natural selection REQUIRES that each step in the chain have some advantage over the previous steps.

Funny... I was just arguing with Tom Woodward (author of Doubts about Darwin) about this very point a couple days ago.

This is slightly incorrect. Evolution does not require that each step have an advantage. Rather, it requires that no step has a large disadvantage.

Small disadvantages are OK. They can stick around in a population for a long time before being completely selected out, or they can even equilibrate at a low level if the mutation happens often enough. Neutral mutations are OK too -- if there's neither advantage nor disadvantage, the mutation can stick around in a population for an incredibly long time (and even become common.)

And, of course, "disadvantages" are contextual. Some mutations might be bad for populations in one area but good for those in another area.

There need not be a chain of clearly advantageous mutations to go from one form to another. All you need is a chain of mutations that never combine to be too inferior to the original within at least one of the environments in question.

Natural Selection won't help you get from one form to another if the mutations are neutral, but you can still get there. Evolutionary theory doesn't rest just on natural selection; it also includes such factors as genetic drift and gene flow, both of which can account for the accumulation of neutral or slightly disadvantageous mutations.

---

I'm not saying the argument is bad or completely without merit, mind you. Just that it's technically incorrect. Changing it to allow for neutral and slightly deleterious mutations being accumulated through non-selective processes doesn't really hurt the argument, but it does close off one avenue of criticism.

It seems that irreducible complexity says nothing about something being logically impossible to have evolved. Since even if you only allow really small step sizes between two forms, there would be an infinitude of crazy whiteboard methods that could be conceived but that might not be practical (say, fit real-world fossil evidence or practical time alotments).

Then irreducible complexity doesn't say anything about something being impossible to have evolved, only that it seems that it would be very difficult to have evolved.

But these too-difficult type arguments against evolution have been around for a while. They have been increasingly addressed by the scientific community (mostly I suspect because they have their roots in appeals to ignorance). Irreducible complexity seems to be just another flavor or example of them. Why should I believe that irreducible complexity is different in that, unlike other, older arguments saying the evolution of something would be too difficult to occur, it won't also in turn be some day reconciled with newer information or discoveries? Is it a matter of measure? IC examples are just a lot more difficult to be explained than previous examples? Or is there something I'm missing here?

---shakes head---

Well, i got a few things to add on here...

First off, how can anyone here who calls themself a follower of Jesus believe in evolution? After all he quoted from the creation story himself!!!(when quoting on marrige in the beginning) For somone who was the creator himself, who called himself the I AM, he would have said it didnt happen that way if it was so....

As far as inteligent design goes... that theory should go to he!! where it belongs! Man compromised Gods teachings once before along time ago(about 350 AD) when constitine mixed the 2 biggest churches of the roman empire to create the "Universal church" and it threw humanity into the dark ages for over a 1000 years....

As far as evolution goes, i'm a history teacher, but i know enought about biology to know Creation has several hands up on the THEORY of evolution.

I may be insane but you people are ★■◆●ing crazy. No one is gonna save you. Take responsibility for your own actions and try to be nice. Thatâ??s about the long and short of it.

Itâ??s an impossible debate... neither side is gonna believe in the other side.

And just because the descent bulletin board community seems to have an exhorbinate amount of delusional right wing christians doesn't make them right... or honest... or honorable... or sane... or good peopleâ?¦ or anything. Itâ??s all a bunch of words.

Why am I even typing? You believe in Winnie the pooh. What can I ever say to change your mind? Nothing.

Bleh. No wonder stingy gave this ★■◆● up.

If your not on the context of the subject then why did you even post? you gave nothing to the topic please dont flame next time.

As for believing in natural selection, I just havent seen enough soild based evidence to support it.. ergo most of the time i've seen the only arguments someone can come up with is about "Well i believe that fossils are hard evidence" and whatnot.

Mind you i can see evidence in dinosaur fossils and other trails to point to creatures that existed within a time period long ago, but it still isnt good enough to support an idea that homo sapiens are a byproduct of a treacherous lie.

Lothar wrote: Evolutionary theory doesn't rest just on natural selection; it also includes such factors as genetic drift and gene flow, both of which can account for the accumulation of neutral or slightly disadvantageous mutations

But how would "slightly disadvantageous" mutations explain the avian lung problem?

Teddy wrote:---shakes head---

Well, i got a few things to add on here...

First off, how can anyone here who calls themself a follower of Jesus believe in evolution?

*shakes head*

I don't believe in evolution; I accept evolution as the best scientific framework put forward so far to explain the (continuously) burgeoning mountain of evidence concerning the nature of life on this planet. If someone comes up with a better scientific theory, then I'll be happy to consider it (scientifically).

Lothar wrote:Natural Selection won't help you get from one form to another if the mutations are neutral, but you can still get there.

Point conceded. But, as you pointed out, it doesn't actually weaken the argument. Since Natural Selection can not select FOR the changes, the naturalist has to argue that they arrived strictly by chance. And the odds that something as complex and specific as a flagellum could have occured by chance are insignificant, even given the entire lifespan of the universe as a timeframe. Thank you for the correction!

Jeff250 wrote:Then irreducible complexity doesn't say anything about something being impossible to have evolved, only that it seems that it would be very difficult to have evolved.

No. Irreducible complexity refers to structures that require multiple working parts before they have any useful function. It's not "Difficult" to evolve them through natural selection, it's impossible. There is no step wise process to reach the final structure, and natural selection HAS to work in a step wise process with each step having an advantage over the previous one. And if Natural Selection can not select for the structure, then you are left with chance, or design, or some new theory no one has come up with yet.

The difference between Behe's argument and the previous arugments is the level he operates on. Shoku mentioned the Avian lung, so lets use that as an example. I agree with him that this organ is very complex, too complex in my opinion for natural selection to work on. The problem is that it is a very high level organ. With a high level structure you have to continually question whether you really understand the low level structure and whether someone else will come along later with a different explanation for some of the low level structures. Mind you, I'm not saying that this eliminates the validity of arguing that a high level organ is irreducibly complex, just that it increases the risk that you have misjudged the case.
But Behe is dealing with molecular machines within the cell. There is no lower level. It's molecules. And we know exactly which molecules. You can look at the flagellum and say, without any doubt, that removing any piece eliminates the function entirely. It can be tested in a lab. Behe's argument is powerful because it operates at this low level. We understand the structures he is talking about, and their irreducible complexity is obvious.

Teddy wrote:how can anyone here who calls themself a follower of Jesus believe in evolution?

It's a very valid theological argument. Almost every member of my church would agree with you, their official church stance is a belief in young earth creationism. (That earth is about 8 to 10 thousand years old and was created in a literal 7 days)

Many good Christians (including myself) have chosen to believe that while we were literally created by God, the 7 day creation week may have been a metaphor to help people understand something that was much to complicated to explain in any other way. But I won't attempt to defend that point theologically. The Biblical stance IS a literal 7 days of creation for this earth.

Teddy wrote:As far as inteligent design goes... that theory should go to he!! where it belongs!

There are young earth creationists in the ID crowd. No need to alianate not only Christians who take a different view on creation than you, but Christians who are in complete agreement with you.

TheCope wrote:And just because the descent bulletin board community seems to have an exhorbinate amount of delusional right wing christians doesn't make them right... or honest... or honorable... or sane... or good peopleâ?¦ or anything. Itâ??s all a bunch of words.

I would say that the descent bb seems to have a good mixture of Christians and Naturalists, otherwise the discussion wouldn't have been going on so long and vehemently. And as long as we are discussing the issue, we are learning. It's GOOD to learn what those who disagree with you really believe. It's important to really understand their arguments. You might find weaknesses in your own (As Lothar just pointed out one in mine), and you might simply be learning that those on the other side are real people instead of cardboard cut out demons. They can disagree with you without being monsters. Which is what we turn our opposition into when we resort to name calling instead of arguments.
AND, who knows, someone from either point of view may actually be convinced to switch sides. I doubt it, but it could happen. Open discussion is a powerful thing.

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:But Behe is dealing with molecular machines within the cell. There is no lower level.

Indeed. Regarding this complexity, please note the following quote:

"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin of the Species; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims . . .

"Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and igenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fasinating new molecular world of the cell. . . . To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity . . .

" . . . Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
-From Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton, a micro-biologist.

Teddy wrote:As far as evolution goes, i'm a history teacher, but i know enought about biology to know Creation has several hands up on the THEORY of evolution.

One of my pet peeves is people who use the word "theory" to apply to evolution without having any idea what the scientific definition of that word really is. A scientific theory is NOT the same thing as saying something like, "I have a theory that aliens really visited Roswell in the 1950s, the government has covered it up for half a century, etc." They're two completely different things. A scientific theory is a broad framework made to explain a variety of observations that has been repeatedly and thoroughly verified through testing and experimentation. Theories are not to be taken lightly, nor should they be tossed aside at the drop of a hat. (That isn't to say they don't change, however. Galilean relativity was sufficient for explaining relative motion at relatively low speeds, but it falls apart as objects approach the speed of light; that's where Einstein's special relativity stepped in. The latter has been verified as true through many experiments, as any theory is.) I really don't care what you yourself believe, but to flat-out dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory" is dead wrong; "just a theory" doesn't exist in science. I'd also be interested in hearing why you feel biology directly backs a young-earth model. I completely disagree with your statement that no Christian can possibly accept evolution; I see no inherent conflict between my own faith and that scientific framework.

(I'd also like to know exactly what you're referring to about Constantine's actions creating a millenia of "dark ages," but that's a topic for another place.)

Teddy wrote:---shakes head---

As far as evolution goes, i'm a history teacher, but i know enought about biology to know Creation has several hands up on the THEORY of evolution.

I never heard of any good teacher saying something like that.

Bettina

it's pretty funny how a few creationists here think calling evolution a theory somehow diminishes it. supporters of evolution know that it is a theory. they also know that ALL knowledge is theoretical and could be refuted, ammended or discarded down the road.

saying evolution is just a theory is like saying descent is just a video game. you might as well say "science is just science". some of you ppl don't understand the very basics.

I agree to a point, it IS irrelevant to point out that fact, but still some people need to remember what we're working with.

When you have people that would swear by something frivilous and unsolid as a bare theory (Regardless of your definition, may it be the comprised work of scientists, or just the thesis itself) And try to argue that it's fact when it clearly cant be proven with factual basis to support it then i will challenge..

The evolutionary theory we work on trying to prove or disprove is what i've heard called neo-darwinism.

Shoku wrote:

Lothar wrote: Evolutionary theory doesn't rest just on natural selection; it also includes such factors as genetic drift and gene flow, both of which can account for the accumulation of neutral or slightly disadvantageous mutations

But how would "slightly disadvantageous" mutations explain the avian lung problem?

I'm not saying they would. I'm just saying the argument, as presented, was technically incorrect.

Teddy wrote: First off, how can anyone here who calls themself a follower of Jesus believe in evolution? After all he quoted from the creation story himself!!!

I believe the creation story is true... I just don't believe it's literal or presents a cosmology. I believe it's a parable -- it teaches a true lesson and true concepts through a story that's not meant to be taken literally.

You can read my wife's incredibly long post on the subject here. The short version of the argument is this:

1) God doesn't seem to care very much about telling us all the details of history for its own sake; He only seems to care about telling us history for the sake of telling us about Him. The important attribute(s) of God we pick up from Genesis 1 isn't "He created in 168 hours" (why would that be important to teach to a bunch of 20th century BC shepherds?); they're that He was the only God, He created all things, and that He created intentionally (these are the concepts 20th century BC shepherds struggled with -- this is the key way in which Genesis 1 differs from the myths the Hebrews would have known before!)

2) Even when you try to read Genesis 1 as a literal cosmology, you find yourself treating parts of it as a parable. When it says "God said" we don't think God made the ancient atmosphere vibrate in those sounds; we think God somehow commanded by the force of His will. When God separated day from night, we understand that half of the earth is in daylight and half is dark, and that separating the two is a natural consequence of the shape of the earth -- and we read it as "God put the earth here and the sun there in order to make day and night happen like this." All through Genesis 1, even the most literal of readers treat sections of it like parable. They're descriptions that give you the essence of what's going on without being literally precise.

The thing that makes me strongly suspect Genesis 1 is a parable is that there's a lesson that makes sense of the whole passage -- every word of the passage fits with the lesson. The lesson is simply that God is not like the other gods the people heard of through the myths of the surrounding cultures. God was the only God, He created all things, and He created them on purpose.

When Jesus quotes the creation story, He mentions that God created male and female because "it is not good for man to be alone". The truth of that statement doesn't change if you read Genesis 1 as parable.

Kilarin wrote:But Behe is dealing with molecular machines within the cell. There is no lower level. It's molecules. And we know exactly which molecules. You can look at the flagellum and say, without any doubt, that removing any piece eliminates the function entirely. It can be tested in a lab. Behe's argument is powerful because it operates at this low level. We understand the structures he is talking about, and their irreducible complexity is obvious.

Kilarin, you might be interested in what Stuart Kauffman is doing. He ran mathematical simulation on what would happen if you just had a high number of enzymes, molecules and threw then into one petridish. He came to the following conclusion:

It is not necessary that a specific set of 2000 enzymes be assembled... Whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth.

Basically, when you have enough molecules with enough different properties, the probability for interactions between them is very high. In addition, the probability that you will find circuits that sustain each other is also very high. From such self-sustaining circuits, its not very far to a working cell. As far as I understand it, the first evidence for such "autocatalytic sets" is coming in.

(edit) bottom line: the complex machinery of the cells might not be so hard to achieve by chance, after all. In fact, from this research it seems that the formation of cells from a high number of molecules is the rule, not the exception.

Zuruck wrote:Intelligent design advocate John Calvert said equating intelligent design to mythology is to label advocates as religious nuts

Could not have said it better myself. Glad to see Kansas is trying to rid themselves of the dumbest state tag...

Pardon me for reviving this old post, but I've been away for a few days, and speaking as a Kansan, I believe I have a right to comment on this. Kansas is one of the smartest states in the nation. It consistently tests higher than most states in the nation. Heck, even in the BEST Robotics program, Kansas teams have been the highest-scoring and most successful teams in the nation since the program has been in existence. Kansans have been winning more and more spelling and geographical bees. Kansas is rapidly becoming one of the best places to be for technology-based jobs.

Quite frankly, KU is going to be seriously hurt by the whole controversy. One of KU's professors was quoted in an e-mail as saying this would be a "slap in the big fat faces" of all those who are supporters of ID. Several people I know have changed their plans to attend KU because of this controversy, and are now planning on attending L-State.

What I don't get is what Creationists are trying to achieve by finding things that cannot be explained by natural selection alone (e.g. cell machinery, the eye, the avian lung).

As if a scientist would ever say "if it cannot be explained by natural selection, then there must be a designer". If you could convince a biologist, he would just concede that natural selection cannot be the ONLY process that is required for a full explanation. In fact, no biologist would rely on natural selection alone, anyways (see Lothar's post above).
It should also be quite obvious that we probably do not know of all the processes we need to take into account for a full explanation. Under-estimations of the probability of evolution might be quite common, even on the molecular level (see post above).

Therefore, all these attempts seem quite ridiculous ... these "counterexamples" might have the flavour of an intuitive thruth for laypersons. But they have nothing to do with what scientist think about them, and they do not challenge the theory of evolution (although they might imply extensions or modificaions).

Pandora wrote:What I don't get is what Creationists are trying to achieve by finding things that cannot be explained by natural selection alone (e.g. cell machinery, the eye, the avian lung).

As if a scientist would ever say "if it cannot be explained by natural selection, then there must be a designer". If you could convince a biologist, he would just concede that natural selection cannot be the ONLY process that is required for a full explanation. In fact, no biologist would rely on natural selection alone, anyways (see Lothar's post above).
It should also be quite obvious that we probably do not know of all the processes we need to take into account for a full explanation. Under-estimations of the probability of evolution might be quite common, even on the molecular level (see post above).

Therefore, all these attempts seem quite ridiculous ... these "counterexamples" might have the flavour of an intuitive thruth for laypersons. But they have nothing to do with what scientist think about them, and they do not challenge the theory of evolution (although they might imply extensions or modificaions).

But with that being said, Science still hasnt proven that Evolution is even enough of a evidence back idea to be the truth.

Keep in mind these were just the ideas of men who lived not long ago, While the idea of creation has lasted well and alive through MANY and i repeat MANY CULTURES, not just within this century.

I would come to conclude with this thought .. Whether you wish to believe either its still going to require you to have "faith" in what you believe, One may say you cant prove what you cant see (I.E an evolutionary standpoint of view regarding creation and the belief in a God or Creator) While the other will say nearly the same thing and defend theyre ideas/beliefs.

Putting the matter aside as to whatever you believe in and why or why not you belive in it, We are still trying to get down to the TRUTH here, saying creation isnt provable is and has just as much weight as the evidence that backs it up and in the case of the theory of natural selection OR neo-darwinisn it looks lacking from what i see.

However I'm not trying to simply say that its a wrong or even false precursor to an explanation of what we can "see" with our eyes today but think of this, how would you even know you had a brain until you revealed it under your skull?

The truth is the point on whether or not i believe in evolutions unevidence backed theory is by how much evidence i see in it, so if you cant come up with evidence to point to an end to a debate about this then people WILL keep believing there is in fact a creator.

Behemoth wrote:The truth is the point on whether or not i believe in evolutions unevidence backed theory is by how much evidence i see in it, so if you cant come up with evidence to point to an end to a debate about this then people WILL keep believing there is in fact a creator.

My first instinctive answer was: "what kind of evidence would you need?" but then I read on.
The point is that I would NOT want people to stop believing in a Creator. I don't see God as mutually exclusive to evolution (See also Lothar's excellent post above). In fact, the most religious person I know is a genetecist who develops procedures to find out how far back it was that certain traits (and their underlying combinations of genes) have been selected for.

The question is not whether you believe in a god or not, the question is whether Creationism and Intelligent design should be considered science....and taught in schools along side evolution.

That is what its all about...

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:The question is not whether you believe in a god or not, the question is whether Creationism and Intelligent design should be considered science....and taught in schools along side evolution.

That is what its all about...

Bettina

If evolution is treated and teached as factually based curriculum, The so should creation.

as i said above, it is not taught as factually based curriculum. you're are concerned with things presented as fact, yet you aren't holding yourself to the same standard.

Actually i dont recall posting anywhere above as treating either as more fact over the other, I HAVE however said if you have no evidence to support natural selection more suitable then treat it as a "myth" being taught in schools as well.

Pandora wrote:you might be interested in what Stuart Kauffman is doing... the complex machinery of the cells might not be so hard to achieve by chance

Kauffman's research won't really interest me to much until he actually starts producing more interesting results in the lab. What he has managed to scrape off the bottom of his petri dish so far is not much more significant than all the other chemical soup experiments that have been going on for years and years.

Yes, if you mix large numbers of molecules you get a few metabolic reactions going. Theoretically, some of those reactions might evolve into more complex reactions over time. Might, they haven't demonstrated it yet. But I'll grant them the fact because it seems reasonable. BUT, it doesn't do anything to explain the origin of irreducibly complex molecular machines. How could a Flagellum "crystallize from the broth?"

Kilarin

Behemoth wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:The question is not whether you believe in a god or not, the question is whether Creationism and Intelligent design should be considered science....and taught in schools along side evolution.

That is what its all about...

Bettina

If evolution is treated and teached as factually based curriculum, The so should creation.

and by the way...

behemoth, what you are suggesting is tantamount to affirmative action for science. not a real good idea, fella. next we'll be having to teach astrology and the reading of tea leaves as science.

a scientific theory is pursued because it is productive scientifically. it's not taught as fact but as theory. the accepted theory is the one that proves to be better than other competing theories. that doesn't mean the theory is accepted as true.

Behemoth wrote:Keep in mind these were just the ideas of men who lived not long ago, While the idea of creation has lasted well and alive through MANY and i repeat MANY CULTURES, not just within this century.

Your point here suggests to me that you are mistaking what the scientific method involves. There is no validity to induction by repetition as Hume showed. Science does not work that way at all. Science is not about observation, it is about critical testing that could refute our theory.

Palzon wrote:

Behemoth wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:The question is not whether you believe in a god or not, the question is whether Creationism and Intelligent design should be considered science....and taught in schools along side evolution.

That is what its all about...

Bettina

If evolution is treated and teached as factually based curriculum, The so should creation.

and by the way...

behemoth, what you are suggesting is tantamount to affirmative action for science. not a real good idea, fella. next we'll be having to teach astrology and the reading of tea leaves as science.

a scientific theory is pursued because it is productive scientifically. it's not taught as fact but as theory. the accepted theory is the one that proves to be better than other competing theories. that doesn't mean the theory is accepted as true.

Behemoth wrote:Keep in mind these were just the ideas of men who lived not long ago, While the idea of creation has lasted well and alive through MANY and i repeat MANY CULTURES, not just within this century.

Your point here suggests to me that you are mistaking what the scientific method involves. There is no validity to induction by repetition as Hume showed. Science does not work that way at all. Science is not about observation, it is about critical testing that could refute our theory.

I'm not worried about scientific methods or anything of that nature, What I'm trying to get accros the board is the truth .. And a theory is just that until you prove it correct which Science has failed to do as of yet.

I'm not going to keep arguing over this as i said what you believe is what you believe regardless of whether its truth or not.