David,

I think you make a good point along the lines of "science does not exist in a vacuum". Indeed, science is a distinctly human process and human beings lead complex, multi-faceted lives. Teaching at any level is an art, even (maybe especially) if one is teaching science. Students learn when they can connect the ideas that are being presented to the broader context of their lives. All of this is nothing more than elementary principles of good teaching. NONE of it justifies entertaining discussion of pseudo-scientific ideas as serious considerations in a science class unless one is explicitly doing so as a pedogological device. So to your call for the use of ID discussions to make science class interesting, I say here, here so long as one is intellectually honest enough with one's students to call a spade a spade at the end of the conversation. This should be allowable and certainly does not necessitate efforts to write ID into public school curricular standards at any level. The only way I could see it legitimately there is as an example on a lesson distinguishing science from pseudo-science.

Materially and faithfully yours,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.26.05 - 10:59 am | #

As a teacher (not in science) I agree with you David, and disagree with you Shaggy.

If you would ban ID form the classroom would you ban a materialist teacher who uses it as an example of pseudo science (rightly of wrongly) as ahs been done in the school I work in?

If you would say that you don't mind it being discussed as a psuedo science then you are bign a hypocrite for not allowing other forms of discussion on it.

If you wouldn't have mentioned in the classroom at all then you are stepping into a domain where you do not belong unless you have extensive experience with teaching and pedagogy.

The problem I see is that the battle lines have been drawn in the worng place. ID *and* secular materialism are metaphysical theories. Both are arguable form the evidence, there is evidence to support and refute both. Most hard line materialists are not philosophically wise enough to realise the difference between facts and theories and so conflate the two.

Many advocates on both sides of the fence are effectively engaging in pseudo science by arguing their *theories* as facts and making a significnat category mistake by misunderstanding the difference.

And this does make for interesting material to study in the classroom.
matt | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 6:49 pm | #

I agree. All pseudo-scientific fields should be taught in science class:

Homeopathy 101, Astrology, Alchemy, Creationism, so on and so forth. Hey, they can't prove any of it wrong, right?
Rockstar | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 6:59 pm | #

1. Mr. Heddle, is this a reversal of your position before that ID not be taught in science class, or just more slithering?

2. You admit that ID is religious apologetics, so you must think that religious apologetics have a place in science class. Does the 1st amendment mean nothing to you?

3. Your whole argument seems to stem from "Well, that's how it was done for me, so it must be all right." By that logic, we would still have slavery, we would still deny women the right to vote, etc. Just because someone else has done something does not mean that it is right.
GCT | 09.26.05 - 9:22 pm | #

First Amendment has something about freedom of religion NOT freedom from religion.

I agree with David. I don't see your point number 3. You don't sound logical at all.
Elvis | 09.26.05 - 11:11 pm | #

David,
Good post, although I think that you make a mistake in placing the lion's share of blame on 'fundamentalist' christians. Not only is your use of fundamentalist a somewhat poor grouping of those involved, but also, the zealous evolutionists have been around for years and actively campaigning to legislatively (using the word mostly inappropriately for the courts role in rewriting legislation) mandate the teaching of only their position.

The current ID case in Dover is merely the latest attempt to break the legislative death grip that the secular humanists have had for decades. The stickers (which seem really corny and tacky) are just an attempt to see where the line is already drawn (by the courts).
Alan Grey | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 11:14 pm | #

GCT
Regarding your point 2. You seem to be implying that there is some metaphysically neutral ground. Conveniently, you seem to claim that your position is that neutral ground.

Just because some robed guys reinterpreted the 1st amendment and the rest of the constitution and garnered more power for itself than it should, does not mean we should continue in that bad interpretation.
Alan Grey | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 11:19 pm | #

matt, you wrote:

"If you would say that you don't mind it being discussed as a psuedo science then you are bign a hypocrite for not allowing other forms of discussion on it."

Why would I want to elevate ID to anything other than the pseudoscience that it is in a science classroom? Mind you, I'm perfectly happy treating students who bring it up with respect as is good teaching practice in any case. But for me to leave on the table the notion that ID is science would be intellectually dishonest. It certainly could be a good case of illustration of what is and what is not science.

You can check your teacher elitism at the door, as far as I'm concerned. Teaching is definitely an art and learning is something we can measure. Your high and mighty attitude about it is embarrasing to witness.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.26.05 - 11:21 pm | #

I agree with rockstar, except that he forgot FSM.

Its also so very strange that zealous environmentalists, mostly scientists, are so keen to have science taught in the science classroom.

Cheers
Graydon | 09.27.05 - 5:57 am | #

Elvis,
First, there is no freedom of religion if one is only free to choose to which religion one will ascribe. Freedom of religion necessarily means that one also has the freedom to choose no religion.

Second, the point I'm making in number 3 is that just because something has been done does not make it right.

Alan Grey,
Science is neutral to religion. Thanks for playing though.
GCT | 09.27.05 - 9:18 pm | #

I'm glad you got one thing right, GCT. Freedom of religion is NOT freedom from religion. One may choose to be an atheist even though I don't think it's right. However, atheists should not push their agenda either.

I still don't see your logic. Something that has been done is used as a gauge for future actions whether right or wrong. Thus, the saying of learn from history instead of repeating history.
Elvis | 09.27.05 - 9:53 pm | #

No Elvis, you have completely misrepresented me.

There is no freedom of religion unless one can have freedom from religion.

Also, David's argument is repeating history, not learning from it. His argument basically boils down to repeating history without learning the lessons. Perhaps if his teachers had been better, he wouldn't find it fine and dandy to include his religious/philosophical opinions in his science, especially because the science (by definition) can not support his position, nor anyone else's.

Also, were you ever going to address my questions? I answered you on the "Science Welcome" entry.
GCT | 09.28.05 - 6:27 am | #

PZ Myers, at Pharyngula, (a regular contributor to Pandas Thumb) agrees. He makes this same point today.

You might have mis-stated the NCSE's position on this.
The Commissar | Homepage | 09.28.05 - 10:58 pm | #

GCT,

Go back and review the postings. The answer is there plus the biblical verses to go with the answer. You just keep asking the same question regardless. Oh, I get it, just keep asking the same question until you hear the answer you want to hear.
Elvis | 09.28.05 - 11:24 pm | #

Shaggy you wrote:
"Why would I want to elevate ID to anything other than the pseudoscience that it is in a science classroom?"

You miss my point. If you are going to call ID Psudo science then the same charge can be levelled at philosophical materialism (the metapohysical assumptions underneath radical materialist evolutionist 'thinking').

My point is that both ID and Materialist philosophy are metaphysical theories. Marcor evolution (as a central tenet of materialist philosophy) is not a fact, but an attempt to explain facts (or better, data).

To treat ID as a Pseudo science and ban it from the classroom should lead to the same response for macro evolution.

Otherwise it's hypocrisy to say one should be banned and the other shouldn't. The same standards should be applied to both. Include one, include the other, exclude one, exclude the other.

As for my 'high and mighty attitude' about teaching call it what you will. I never claimed to be a good teacher, or a particularly knowledgable one. But I *have* done it and faced the particular set of issues that teachers face in the classroom.

If I was a computer programmer and you weren't would I be within my writes to ask you not to tell me how to do my job? I think most would agree that I would. It seems that everyone has an opinion about teaching and teachers (often held uncritically based on ther own experience as learners [often in school systems that have significantly changed since then]) and feel they have every right to express them.

David is right to say that there is a pedagogy issue here. And right to point out that people with no idea of good teaching pedagogy (the NCSE) are going places where they probably shouldn't.



When you've walked a mile in my shoes I'll be more inclined to listen to you.
matt | Homepage | 09.28.05 - 11:30 pm | #

GTC, you wrote:
"Science is neutral to religion."

To actually claim this you'll have to rigoursly define what you mean by science.

If you mean the process of experimental investigatin, then yes it is neutral, but I have found that few who express this opinion actually mean that.

There are a great many people who conflate science with philosophical materialism. In which case it is decidedly not neutral to religion (or much else besides). I don't know if you are one of these people, though your comments suggest you might be.

In fact you can be a scientist without being a philosophical materialist as many current scientists are, and most have been in history.

So the comment that scinece is neutral to religion depends entirely on what you mean by "Science".
matt | Homepage | 09.28.05 - 11:52 pm | #

Elvis,
I've asked you again and again why you don't reject physics, geology, cosmology, etc. that contradict the 6 day literal creation and your only answer has been, "God created science," which is no answer at all. To say now that you have answered my question is completely dishonest.

Matt,
First, the fact that scientists can be religious or non-religious only proves my point.

Second, do not conflate philosophical materialism with methodological materialism, they are NOT the same. It is Creationists that seek to do this, not scientists.

Science has a very specific definition, being that which follows the scientific method. Evolution does that, as does physics, geology, etc. It is how we arrived at micro and macro evolution. It is science. ID is not, because it is utterly incapable of following the scientific method. You can equivocate all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Further, it is fully within the NCSE's purview to look at ID, decide it does not rise to the level of science, and ask that it not be taught as such. The NCSE is just as qualified as any teacher to decide if ID has scientific merit.
GCT | 09.29.05 - 7:11 am | #

Intelligent design means different things to different people. At one level, it idenifies a conceptual flaw in the mechanism of evolution. How does selection give rise to irreducibly complex molecular machines? I have not seen this answered adequately by the evolutionary biologists. This aspect of intelligent design is science because it suggests that there is something missing in our understanding of the mechanism of evolution, and it demands a scientific explanation. Science involves continous testing of the current model, and there is nothing unscientific about challenging the mechanism by which evolution leads to complex molecular machines.
The notion of an intelligent designer is what seems to rankle most people, and it is what they focus on. They forget the original legitimate scientific question that leads to concept of an intelligent designer.
John | 09.29.05 - 7:41 pm | #

David, thank you. I haven't seen this POV expressed by many, but I also feel ID should be discussed in the classroom. Please consider stopping by atlasblogged.com and seeing the articles "Science is Not Afriad" and "Intelligent Design in my Classroom?"

In fact, just this week we had a chance to talk about this in my classroom.
Wulf | Homepage | 09.29.05 - 10:15 pm | #

GCT,

Those other topics do not contradict God's science. Why should it? Before you call others dishonest, take a good look in the mirror. I gave you much more than three words for your answer, but as you will - keep asking the same thing until you hear what you want to hear.
Elvis | 09.29.05 - 11:41 pm | #

Elvis,
Of course science does not contradict itself. What it contradicts is the 6 day literal creation. You have avoided answering once again. You claim evolution is bad because it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, but you will not make the same claim for physics, geology, etc. that contradict the literal 6 day claim. I've asked repeatedly why you do not and you have never answered. If you believe I am in error or being dishonest, then prove it. It should be a simple matter for you to pull up what you said in response to this and prove me wrong.

John,
Saying that evolution is wrong is not necessarily science. If ID consists solely of criticisms of evolution, then it is not a theory in and of itself. But, seeing as how you think that IC is science, could you please come up with some experiments that show IC? The problem you will find is that the argument for IC is a negative one. "This flagella could not have arisen through purely natural processes and requires an intelligence to design it." OK, go through all possible known and unknown natural processes and show that. Another problem you will find is that saying, "Thedesignerdidit" is not an explanation at all. How did the designer do it. When did the designer do it? What did the designer do, specifically, that made flagellum what they are? Can you answer those questions?
GCT | 09.30.05 - 6:18 am | #

GCT,

One last time, but you will probably ask the same old question again until you hear what you want to hear.

There is a dead end to human intellectual pursuits in trying to understand everything that God does. See Ecclesiastes 1:13-18. Or, do you want me to type out the verse for you?

Take this as a thought experiment for yourself. When God created Adam, what did he look like 1 second after God made him? A thirty something year old person? So, at that point in time if someone from now were to observe Adam, how old would that person say Adam was? 1 second or 30 some years? There is no contradiction because God gave you the science and God gave you what to believe. The science works for us, but you have to have the belief that God started the ball rolling at a point in time where the science begins for us. Human observation may not jive with what God actually did, but that does not mean there is conflict. It means that humans don't fully understand God's work. The sticking point is where faith comes into play.

So, it comes down to what you believe? Do you believe in God's miracles as I have asked you, but you fail to answer those questions. God's miracles as in life, Immaculate conception, Resurrection, water into wine, feeding thousands on two fish and five loaves, etc. Science the way humans observe can't explain God's miracles.

If you don't believe in God's miracle, that is your impasse and thus you will continue to ask the same old question over and over until you think you hear what you want to hear.

You can't expect people to fully explain God's work. Why do you expect me to provide and explanation? It's not proving you wrong, but what is in your heart with respect to God.
Elvis | 09.30.05 - 8:55 am | #

Elvis,
So your answer is that science and the Bible are not ever in conflict, even though the Bible says that God created all in 6 literal days and science flatly refutes that? That's not an answer, it's avoidance, once again. I'm pointing out a specific instance where the Bible makes an empirical claim that is flatly refuted by physics, geology, etc. and you are trying to tell me that there is no conflict there? Really, there doesn't have to be conflict, except that you have held that the Bible is to be interpretted literally. If you ease that restriction, then you can say that the science is correct and the Bible is allegorical on that story, but you haven't been willing to do that either. Your position is untenable. You either reject all science that disagrees with your interpretations or you accept the science and rethink your interpretations. But, it is inconsistent to throw out evolution while maintaining all other science under your current framework.
GCT | 09.30.05 - 11:51 am | #

As I mentioned on InTheAgora yesterday, the only time that I know of where the bible disagreed with science is when most scientists (including Einstein) believed in a steady state universe. The bible clearly teaches that there was a time when the universe was not. The bible was right. As I have posted here before, if the bible and science disagree, the bible is right. However, when Christians and scientists disagree (a big difference), my scorecard indicates that scientists are usually correct.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 12:17 pm | #

Mr. Heddle,
That is because you interpret the 6 day creation story to not actually mean that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Elvis has not granted that. Therefore, Elvis's position differs from yours. If Elvis comes out and says that he agrees with you that the Bible does not mean 6 literal 24 hour periods, then that issue would be cleared up. Until then, the issue stands.
GCT | 09.30.05 - 2:12 pm | #

Yes, Elvis and I have different views. Interestingly enough, we both claim a literal interpretation of Genesis.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:11 pm | #

GCT,
It's curious that you request an experiment that shows how a flagella could arise by intelligent design. I recently asked the Panda's Thumb crew to give me an experiment that would demonstrate evolution in a real time experiment. I never got one. I then asked for a hypothetical mechanism for the evolution of a flagella, starting from the more basic TTCC complex. No one had any ideas. Evolutiondidit. It seems that neither evolution nor ID will provide us that crucial experiment. Since neither will give us a scientific mechanism to explain how a flagella came into existence, should we conclude that only ID is lacking?
John | 09.30.05 - 6:56 pm | #

GCT,

You missed the thought experiment. Shall I put that down again?

Take this as a thought experiment for yourself. When God created Adam, what did he look like 1 second after God made him? A thirty something year old person? So, at that point in time if someone from now were to observe Adam, how old would that person say Adam was? 1 second or 30 some years? There is no contradiction because God gave you the science and God gave you what to believe. The science works for us, but you have to have the belief that God started the ball rolling at a point in time where the science begins for us. Human observation may not jive with what God actually did, but that does not mean there is conflict. It means that humans don't fully understand God's work. The sticking point is where faith comes into play.

Is there a "conflict?" Only in the limited human mind. When God created Adam, after 1 second a human observer from now would say Adam was 30 something years old not 1 second because the biology science says he is. Step back and think. Is there really a conflict? No.
Elvis | 09.30.05 - 9:53 pm | #

Your physics instructor was a distinguished researcher, top in his field, with a MacArthur Foundation genius grant? Who was this guy? What's his name?
Ed Darrell | 10.01.05 - 11:15 am | #

Which one? My nuclear/particle physics instructor was Lincoln Wolfenstein, at Carnegie Mellon.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 11:35 am | #

Elvis,
The Bible clearly states that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Science flatly refutes that. You are completely in error and/or avoiding the question. I wonder why. Could it be that if you were to actually answer it that you would show yourself to be intellectually inconsistent?

As for your thought experiment, I saw it, but it is not related to the question I posed of you.
GCT | 10.01.05 - 4:17 pm | #

John, if you want to see evolution in real time, check out the talk origins webpage and look at the experiments that have been done, especially with drosophilla, etc.

Evolution has posited at least a possible pathway for flagella and mechanisms for the evolution of flagella to happen. ID has posited no mechanisms or any sort. So, which one do you think is lacking?

BTW, which PT thread were you on? Please provide a link.
GCT | 10.01.05 - 4:21 pm | #

GCT,

I may be in error to think you were smart enough to make the comparison, but you must have it again.

If God can create something where a human observer comes after the fact. The human observer may think something different from the science derivation. This goes for God creating humans. This goes for God creating the earth. God is correct with what God did. Science from God may be correct in its workings. But, the error comes with humans failing to make the link. The failure is the failure to believe that God can do miracles of which you have not made yourself clear on whether you believe in God's miracles.

Can you make the link with God creating something, but a human observer may derivate something different if only relying on science?

I suppose if I hear the same accusations and questions again, you can't make that link.
Elvis | 10.01.05 - 10:02 pm | #

GCT,
When you say that "evolution has posited at least a possible pathway for the evolution of the flagella," what exactly are you referring to? Where would I find the mechanism by which interacting proteins (which have no function with respect to motility) are are ultimately selected to produce a flagella? Please post the site.
Here is the PT thread:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/ archi...que_of_beh.html

With regard to fruit flies evolving in real time, are you referring to the appearance of new species in real time? Did any IC machines evolve into existence with the appearance of these new species?
John | 10.02.05 - 11:08 pm | #

Elvis,
Is your notion of God that God is a trickster? Does God intentionally make the universe look as if it is billions of years old when it is really only thousands of years old, or is that humans are all too stupid to be able to read the "science" correctly to figure out that the universe really isn't billions of years old?

John,
I am referring to the TTSS as well as the mechanisms that we have discovered that are part of the ToE. The mechanisms are those that are identified as part of the ToE, and can be found on talkorigins.

Fruit flies have been shown to develop novel features in "real time." Also, many species of plants have been shown to speciate. I suggest you check out the 29 evidences for macroevolution on talkorigins. Also, check out genetic algorithms.

As for PT, it seems to me like you were answered over and over again with every post you made, even as you shifted the goal posts and refused to answer basic questions posed towards you.
GCT | 10.03.05 - 9:23 pm | #

GCT,

Why don't you answer the question about whether or not you believe in God's miracles?

The "trickster" is only in your mind. Based on how you elude acknowledging God's miracles, of course you think that those are tricks. God doesn't have to prove anything to us humans. We just have to have the faith. Do you have the faith?

These "novel" features as you call them in fruit flies. How do you know that those genes weren't there in the first place and that with the laboratory inbreeding, some of those recessive genes were surfaced? Recessive genes that have always been there are not evolution.
Elvis | 10.04.05 - 11:03 pm | #

Matt wrote:

"To treat ID as a Pseudo science and ban it from the classroom should lead to the same response for macro evolution."

First, let's remember that "macroevolution" is a descriptive term for the perception of large-scale changes when one looks either across lineages or over large extents of time down a given lineage. Evolutionary theory does not claim that the kind of change referred to as "macro" occurs in immediate, saltatory steps. Individuals from two sister species are likely to appear quite similar to each other on the one hand, while on the other we have the examples of ring species to show us that divergence can indeed happen even in what is arguably a single species.

Now, to your statement, please explain precisely what it is about evolutionary theory that you consider to be pseudoscience. While you're at it, what empirical scientific method and resultant evidence supports ID beyond the arguments from incredulity known as IC and SC?

Finally, congratulations on your experience as a teacher. Since you have no idea what my experiences or background are, please explain how your experience justifies your glance down your nose about my relative familiarity or expertise in matters of science pedagogy.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.05.05 - 2:55 pm | #

Elvis,
I'm not concerned with miracles. They are not germaine to the topic of this discussion. If you want to say that God created the world in 6 literal days, and that it was a miracle, then fine. I don't care. The question is now, how do you square that with the fact that science, and science you accept no less, has determined that the universe was NOT created in 6 literal days, while rejecting evolution out of hand for violating your literal interpretations of the Bible? See, you are utterly incapable of answering that question.

The novel features were not recessive genes, I suggest you actually check out talkorigins. If you want another example, bacteria becomes immune to drugs that we produce.
GCT | 10.05.05 - 4:22 pm | #

GCT,

Again, you missed the boat on God's miracles compared to a science derivation by humans even after it was spelled out for you. Go back and look at the answer.

How do you know that there were not recessive genes? Do you know everything there is to know about the genetic make up?

Becoming "immune" is not an evolution thing. If you suggest that, you are under a false belief that all bacteria are the same. Different bacteria have different immune levels just like people have different immunity levels to the common cold. Some people catch colds all the time while some don't. Kill off the bacteria with no immunity and leaving the bacteria with immunity. This is not evolution.
Elvis | 10.05.05 - 6:30 pm | #

Elvis,

Clearly you do not understand the process by which antibiotic resistance evolves in bacteria. That you don't is an excellent example of poor scientific literacy; in the case of drug resistant bacteria, the results of such misunderstanding can be costly for society. See, it sort of matters that people understand how evolution works. GCT used the term "immune" which may have confused you. Acquired immunity in you and me is indeed distinct from the evolution of bacterial "immunity"; in the case of bacteria it is a textbook case of evolution in action.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.05.05 - 8:13 pm | #

Wow I have seen many good points from both sides here.

My questions are these.

1. Assuming that God is real, all knowing, and wants all of his children to ascend to Heaven. Why would he knowingly create a world that would lead the more skepitcal minded people he created away from his fold?

He had to know this would happen, he is God correct?

2. Why can't some people of faith accept that the same scientists who gave us TV, microwave ovens, electric lights, also gave us evolution?

Evolution is still a "theory" because it is not complete (admitted by the science industry) if they were to claim flawless victory it would be a LAW.

Many christians choose to pull the "not true" label when the offending science contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible, but still have faith that their microwave oven will cook their meal.

Lastly, is it possible that the Bible was written by man and is itself flawed?
Canis | 10.05.05 - 8:23 pm | #

Shag,

Clearly, you don't understand genetic variation where bacteria may exhibit different immunity levels.

Antibiotic resistance in varying degrees was already present in the bacterial population, as demonstrated by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. We are just talking about natural selection or selective breeding to get your resistance not evolution. Nothing new was produced.

In another example, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity. Again, not evolution.

Canis, there is a big difference with science and the misinterpretation/misuse of science by humans. That is where the contention is located, not in the science. Show me where microwaves contradict the Bible per your claim.
Elvis | 10.05.05 - 10:53 pm | #

Elvis,
It is not I who is missing the boat. I even specifically asked you if humans were too stupid to understand that what we measure is inaccurate. That's exactly what it sounds like you are saying. "God created the world in 6 literal days and we can't figure out the universe so we stupidly think it was created over billions of years." That's what I'm getting from you. Is that the case? If so, then you should be rejecting physics, geology, etc.

Natural selection is part of evolution. I can't believe you are trying to say that it isn't. Also, you might want to look up some work on bacterial resistances. There are cases of bacteria that do not have resistance to a drug or chemical then develop it once that drug/chemical is introduced. It's how we proved that random mutations happen. I suggest you look up someone like Shapiro.
GCT | 10.06.05 - 6:51 am | #

Elvis,

Natural selection acting on mutant variations within a population IS evolution. Your claim that the variation was all there to begin with fails in at least two ways. Even if the resistant variants were present before the use of antibiotics, it is still likely that such variants arose within populations by mutation. Second, we can see the whole process happen in real time. Bacteria are very easy to grow in pure culture - just streak a given culture on a petri plate and isolate individual colonies. All cells in a colony descend from a single cell. Starting with such a purified culture that is not resistant to a given antibiotic, simply challenge the culture with low doses of the antibiotic of your choice and eventually a mutant strain that is resistant will come to dominate the culture. Remember, this is starting with an isolated culture that is not resistant. Mutation, selection, change in phenotype of the population...it all adds up to evolution. If that isn't good enough for you, we also have the examples of bacteria that have evolved the ability to metabolize synthetic organic compounds - i.e. molecules that never existed in nature before humans synthesized them.

Again, I'm afraid you are fighting a losing battle in your continued denial of what we know scientifically about the observed phenomena collectively known as evolution. If your God only works for you in the land of make-believe it doesn't seem like a very meaningful God to me. Suit yourself.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.06.05 - 9:59 am | #

GCT and Shag,

It's not a losing battle for me. I plant the seed. You nurture that seed how you want. It's not up to me for you to believe in God.

You missed the boat again. Circumstantial observations is not necessarily what really happened. Does that mean humans are stupid? Only if they keep asking the same questions over and over again hoping to get a different answer.

Your flimsy examples of evolution do not jive. I doubt that every evolutionist will even use those as examples of evolution. Bringing out genes that were already there is not a change by evolution. It's making use of what is already there. Since you claim evolution, what is that new material from? What gene is the new gene?
Elvis | 10.06.05 - 6:09 pm | #

Elvis

Science is responsible enough to admit that the "theory" of evolution is as yet incomplete, even though newer evidence always points back to it.

Knowing that the Bible was written by man and man is flawed, (and according to you incapable of interpreting the work of god) why then can't the Bible be flawed?

Lastly I never said that the microwave oven contradicted the Bible, I said it contradicted the logic process of many Christians. The science behind it is sound, why do you trust the scientists on that subject but not on evolution?

Canis
Canis | 10.06.05 - 7:52 pm | #

Elvis

One other thing

to say that man can't understand God's creations is not accurate. Science has a very firm understanding of Human and Animal Biology, Botney, Weather, the laws of the universe like Gravity and E=MC2, we discovered micro organisms and viruses, and we have created some little monsters of our own. We have cracked the genetic code and split the atom. To say that humans dont "get it" is a cop out.

It is almost as bad as what my grandmother used to say

"Tricks of the devil"

Canis
Canis | 10.06.05 - 8:22 pm | #

OK, Canis. Explain scientifically the Resurrection. Explain scientifically life - how did life begin? Humans can't explain and neither do they understand.

If you are alluding to scientists creating life, not even scientists claim that. Creating life as in life from where there is no life (e.g. making life from a sterile pile of dirt). Propagating life from things that are from the living is not creating life (e.g. gene splicing is not creating life).

Scientists may understand some of the processes involved after something is already here. On your examples with matter and energy (splitting the atom), where did matter and energy come from in the first place?

Things that you name - weather for example. There may be some explanations on how it happens. However, do scientists truly understand it to the detail where it can be controlled? What is this cop out on the "butterfly effect" where weather is chaotic and not predictable if weather is truly understood?

To assume that humans know it all is just not right. You should have listened to your grandmother's wisdom.
Elvis | 10.06.05 - 11:02 pm | #

Elvis

I am not saying that scientists have all of the answers, but does the Bible explain how life was created any better? Does it even mention atoms or DNA? no

You would have us believe that some big invisible man in the sky made everything, so we should just give up on trying to find answers to these questions and accept it.

Human nature does not work that way, why do you think we started searching in the first place?

Do you really believe that god wants us not to search for truth? Do you really believe that by seeking the answers to those questions and others that we somehow offend God? Don't you think that as our creator God would want us to become all we can be?

We may travel down the wrong path from time to time, but consider this example: When a person's child makes the wrong choices in life do his parents love him any less, in my experience the answer is no. Even when the choice is almost unforgivable the parent figure often says that they still love the child.

Evolution is the best theory we have so far that fits the evidence. It is a theory which means it is not complete. One day someone might turn over a rock on Mars that says "MADE BY GOD" and all of our questions will be answered. but until then I will keep searching.

Canis
Canis | 10.07.05 - 7:29 am | #

Elvis,
The losing battle is your ever present intellectual dishonesty.

The fact is that humans did keep asking the same questions and did get different answers. The Bible said that the universe was created in 6 literal days. Scientists kept asking and investigating and found out that the universe actually took billions of years to form. You are completely incapable of facing that fact. Yet, you accept the science that gives rise to it, so long as that science doesn't involve evolution, because evolution is somehow counter to your interpretations of the Bible. The kicker to all this is that you don't even recognize the contradiction. It's really quite sad.
GCT | 10.07.05 - 10:53 am | #

So, Canis, why reject God's word? In these posts, I've listed how God's word provided the foundation for science before you had modern day scientists.

See http://www.clarifyingchristianit...m/ science.shtml

I never said to quash curiosity. As you said, evolution is theory yet you have others who push it as if it were law. Who says evolution is the best theory? The boundary is crossed when humans claim to be God because they know it all and become atheistic.

GCT, I see you still aren't smart enough to see the difference between circumstantial evidence versus what really happened.
Elvis | 10.07.05 - 5:24 pm | #

Elvis

Here is the contention between ID and Evolution as I see it.

Evolutionists took all of the available evidence and formed a theory from it, starting with a blank slate. That theory was discussed, challenged, tested, and improved on. The theory is always suspect as new evedience is brought in. The current theory is what we have compiled from all of that work and is concidered the best idea from all avalable data.

ID works almost exactly opposite.

The IDists said ok we have the Bible and we have the evidence how can we manipulate the evedience to make the Bible correct? Instead of starting from a blank slate they started with preset ideas of what they wanted to "discover".

They set out to prove the Bible correct and in doing so had to discredit evolution. They did not follow the scientific method and should not be allowed to conduct lessons in a science class. I do believe there is room for ID in theology and other idea based classes (debate comes to mind) but if ID does not use the scientific method it should not be in science class.

If it is allowed in science class what form will it take? The christian religion is not the only ID idea out there.

We practice freedom of religion in this country do you want Wiken ID in the science class with the others how about the Satanists view point, are they any less valid?

I know you will say they are less valid, but you do not believe in them. But the people who do, believe as strongly as you do about Jesus.

If we let one in we are opening the door to the others, we may find some our next generation of people worshipping Zeus and Athena!

You may think this sounds silly but why are these other theories less valid, they cannot be disproved either.


Think on it.

Later
Canis
Canis | 10.07.05 - 10:26 pm | #

Canis,

If one looked at the public school system, you will see that those other things you classify as religion are OK to discuss. However, when Christianity is mentioned, ears stick up and the "it offends me" to hear about Christianity props up by the few. So, is there a bias against Christianity? Yes. You can be anything else, but if Christianity is mentioned, someone will want to go to court. Look around, it is happening. Yes, I went through the public school system.

I'm not opposed to the pseudoscience of evolution as a theory. I'm opposed to the pseudoscience of evolution being pushed as undisputed fact.

Through this thread, you heard the back and forth about bacteria and how they are genetically identical. Just look at identical twins, they are genetically identical, yet there are variations as in different fingerprints, height may vary, weight may vary, tastes may vary, disease susceptibility may vary, facial construction may vary, retinal construction may vary (any other biometric items), etc. Same genetics does not mean that everything is identical.

Why do humans get hooked on drugs? Is this evolution? Drugs damage the body and eventually death. I thought the theory was improvement changes to propagate life. In the addict, "immunity" to the drugs happen and the addict needs more for the high. Did that addict change into something different from a human when that tolerance happens? No. X-Men style fantasy is in the comic books and Hollywood movies.

Humans are billions of individual cells. Why is there one consciousness? Why are you of one mind instead of billions of individual thoughts by each cell?
Elvis | 10.08.05 - 8:43 am | #

Elvis

I don't know where you went to school but when I took my first science classes the first thing we discussed was the scientific method, and the difference between a theory and a law.

By clasifying evolution as a theory it should always be understood that it may be wrong, all of the facts are not in yet. For now it is the best scientific explination that we have.

I for one think that this attitude is mature and sound.

But if you talk to an IDer about other possibilities they never want to hear it.

Of course many of the other religons are discussed in the public schools but not in the science class room, they are discussed as myth. you find most of the other writings in litature class or theology.

I could'ent care less about bacteria I have not read those works and can't comment on them.

If you want an answer to the question on why people are becomeing addicted to drugs consider this.

Drugs are desigined that way.

Also, an addict does not build up an "immunity" They build up a "tolerance", the two are different.

Evolution says that species changes takes millions of years so I don't think you will see any new mutant humans in your lifetime.

Humans have a single mind because as with all complex orginisims we have a nervous system that orginizes our sences, any other setup would be disasterous and inefficient, A complex orginisim set up any other way would not live long enough to reproduce.

If you cant believe the possibility that all oginisms on our fine little planet came from a single source concider this:

"What can be more curious," Darwin wrote in "Origin," "than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?"

Later

Canis
Canis | 10.08.05 - 11:33 am | #

Ok here is some more info for you Elvis.

It appears that many people in the church don't agree that ID holds much credibility either. I came across an article today that says just that. The following passage sums up the article very nicely.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

it goes on to say

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

article info: booktalk.org
Religion, Philosophy & the Arts Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Later

Canis
canis | 10.08.05 - 11:47 am | #

Elvis:

I think you missed this part of what I wrote so I'll repeat it for you...

Starting with such a purified culture that is not resistant to a given antibiotic, simply challenge the culture with low doses of the antibiotic of your choice and eventually a mutant strain that is resistant will come to dominate the culture. Remember, this is starting with an isolated culture that is not resistant. Mutation, selection, change in phenotype of the population...it all adds up to evolution.

These are novel functions acquired by bacteria. Modifications to existing enzymes alter their specificity and activity providing new function. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolution works by modifying what currently exists; it is a straw-man argument to say evolution produces nothing new; evolutionary theory doesn't predict entirely new enzymes made from scratch. Think tinker.

By the way, you don't need to plant any seeds for the sake of my faith in God. That, by God's doing, is alive and well, thank you.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Anonymous | 10.08.05 - 11:53 am | #

Shag,

So, as humans develop immunity/tolerance for a drug so does the bacteria. Challenge the human body with your low doses of drugs and eventually it needs more and more to have the same effect. The human does not change into something different.

According to your latest, evolution modifies that which already exists. Does that mean that according to evolutionary theory, the first one celled creature had thousands of pairs of genes so that they can be split off for multicellur creatures, gills, fins, legs, wings, etc. Sounds very unlikely.

Canis, perhaps different animals look alike because they have a common Creator. Just as you make things in your own style where others can tell it is you as the artist.

As for these "mutations" claimed, how do these "mutations" always create a male and female to reproduce new generations?

Ah, millions of years. There are those evolutionists in this thread who claim evolution is undisputed truth and happens in our real time.

So, I gave you the Bible references for the sciences it describes. Did you see in Genesis 2 where God put Adam to sleep before He took a rib? In essence, God provided the idea for anesthesia to us, but it took us almost 2000 years to get it right. With Civil War operations and amputations, humans were still strapping the patient down and sawing as fast a possible.

Why don't you provide references where you say there is conflict? Don't pass on heresay, but look up the references yourself. Is there really a conflict? No.
Elvis | 10.08.05 - 5:34 pm | #

Hi Elvis:

There is a fundamental distinction between "adaptation" that might occur in a human during her or his lifetime, say tolerance for a drug, and adaptation that occurs because of differential survival and reproductive success. The drug tolerance in the human is an acquired characteristic analagous to gain in muscle mass through weight training. It will NOT get passed to the subsequent generation, so it is not a mechanism of evolution. In the case of bacteria, you are talking about a whole population of individual organisms in which one or few possess a genetic mutation that confers resistance to the antibiotic. When those individuals reproduce, they pass along the mutation to their offspring and thus the frequency of the mutation among individuals in the population increases. Thus, it is the population that becomes adapted to the selective agent, i.e. the antibiotic. If there is anything in that which doesn't make sense, just say so and I'll try to explain it more plainly.

Second, there is no need for a primordial cell to be "front-loaded" with all the potential genes of the current diversity of life. We already know of mechanisms of gene duplication that allow tinkering and modification of genes and divergence of genes without the claimed problems of loss of original function.

As for your biblical references, I'm happy to consult the bible for theological and spiritual edification. By faith, I understand that the Holy Spirit works in the reading of scripture for the edification of my spiritual self by God's grace. However, it would, IMO, be an abuse and insult to scripture to read it in hopes of gaining "scientific" knowledge. The bible, IMO, has an entirely different purpose. It may coincidentally contain references that seem to correspond (or not) to scientific understanding of the material universe, but that is not its purpose. By faith, I understand the bible to be a revelation of God's Word to convey the Gospel. Period.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.10.05 - 9:30 am | #

Elvis,
I see you still have no answer for your intellectual dishonesty besides calling my intelligence into question. How very Christian of you.

The funny thing is that the view that you hold was replaced by scientific knowledge. The predominant view was that the universe was formed in 6 literal days, until we discovered the science that helped us to learn otherwise. So, you should be rejecting that science, yet you don't. You just claim that we are too stupid to understand and that more primitive people had it right all along? How dreadful. Next time you go to the doctor, ask him to read the Bible to figure out what is wrong with you and prescribe medicine to heal you. Tell him that you don't believe in the science of evolution that has brought about the medicines that you receive and that you'd rather not have any of them because they are contradictory to God. See if you get better.

Finally, your juvenile example of lifting weights to somehow evolve yourself is just that, juvenile. You can erect straw men all you like, but it won't make your arguments any better. In fact, why should you have to erect straw men at all. If your position is as strong as you say it is, then that tactic should be unnecessary. Also, real time is subjective. What is real time to us is many generations to bacteria and fruit flies. So, we can see evolution happen through multitudes of generations in those life forms, yet to see something happen through humans one would have to wait for the equivalent time in terms of our generations. If you could look up evolution in a text book and actually find out what it says, that might be helpful to you in the future to not make yourself look so ignorant.
GCT | 10.10.05 - 1:17 pm | #

Instead of lingering in this old thread, you can go to a newer one posted on October 4, 2005, further up these postings where David addresses the inerrancy of the Bible.

Isn't that the point where evolution just doesn't work? You have evolutionists that don't claim those things named to be evolution. Yet, you claim it to be. I also know evolutionists who claim dog breeds are evidence for evolution, but that is a big mistake to claim breeding out traits to be evolution.

GCT, it is very Christian to point out things that don't jive with God's word. If you view it as questioning your intelligence, then you may want to rethink your evolutionary position. It is NOT Christian-like to agree to things that are in conflict with God.

As for alluding to evolution being a foundation to all sciences such as medicine, you are way off again. Medicines are mentioned in the Bible for your information. Would you like those references?

Prov. 17:22
Isa. 1:6
Isa. 38:21
Jer. 8:22
Jer. 30:13
Jer. 46:11
Jer. 51:8,9
Ezek. 47:12
Luke 10:34
Rev. 22:2

We can list more references for physicians and diseases.

Like I said, God gave us the basics. As we get more advanced through our God given knowledge, did we stray away from the basics or did we go off on a tanget? When humans begin to give themselves the credit and make themselves out to be God, the line is crossed. Evolutionary theory crosses that line and nothing is proven yet some push it as if it were true.
Elvis | 10.10.05 - 2:01 pm | #

Elvis

You say that some evolutionists don't claim that the bacteria example is not evolution - that may be.

What do you say to the Bishops that say that the Bible should not be taken literally? Will you even acknowledge that they exist? These people are biblical scholars and they admit that parts of the Bible could be creationists' myth, just like many other religions that attempted to explain the beginning.

Written history deviates drastically from the Bible, look to the Roman records. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet there is no record of any of the biblical events in that those records.

Every time a new person entered a Roman province there was a record, every time a person was arrested for any crime there was a record; entered a brothel - record; bought a dog - record. If the events in the Bible were in fact literal why then would the Romans not record a single event from those happenings? Egyptians as well.

If you say they were to embarrassed to record it, look to the Spartacus records. The Roman Republic was again and again thwarted by a slave army, but it is all there recorded for everyone to see. legions destroyed, moneys lost, estates burned to the ground, all recorded.

The Old Testament is even regarded by many Jews as made up stories inspired by God for educating the people in how best to live their lives.

You need to do a little historical study, because in Roman times there was anesthesia, many of there medical practices have only recently been rediscovered. The Christian church had a hand in destroying that advanced knowledge. Just as you are trying to destroy it again.

You claim that seeking knowledge is a good thing, but if we find information that conflicts with the Bible we have some how made a mistake. (Everything else is ok though.)

Is your mind open enough to believe in God even if the Bible is flawed? Or does your faith rest solely in the Bible's accuracy?

If it is the latter I think in the coming years you may be in for a huge disappointment.

Later

Canis
Canis | 10.10.05 - 11:55 pm | #

Elvis,
"GCT, it is very Christian to point out things that don't jive with God's word. If you view it as questioning your intelligence, then you may want to rethink your evolutionary position."
If I view it as "questioning my intelligence"? Let's see what you wrote, shall we?

"GCT, I see you still aren't smart enough to see the difference between circumstantial evidence versus what really happened."

I'm not smart enough to throw out millions of pieces of scientific evidence that point to a universe that was NOT formed in 6 literal days? I'm not smart enough to take the words of the Bible as literal truth when they are in conflict with those millions of pieces of scientific evidence? I'm not smart enough to take YOUR interpretation as the end all be all of Biblical interpretations and accept what you say to be right, regardless of how it might disagree with what others say?

Hmmm, that makes me want to ask an interesting question. How do you KNOW that you are RIGHT in your interpretations. Are you not human? Are you not fallible? How do you know that your interpretations are not wrong? Are you putting yourself on the same level as God? If not, then why should I listen to your opinions of what the Bible means? I mean since you don't have the ability to show ANY semblance of intellectual honesty, it makes it rather difficult to take you at your word. Also, the accusations of being stupid, followed by the equally insulting statement you made about MAYBE questioning my intelligence (as if I wouldn't know what you are doing,) also make it very hard to believe what you say. You shouldn't have to resort to such tactics if you had anything of substance to say.

Last thing, modern medicine does not come from the Bible. None of your references tell us how to manufacture antibiotics, treat disease, etc. You are full of it. What you are doing is looking at the advancements made by science, then going back and trying to find the credit in the Bible after the fact. It's shameful and pathetic.
GCT | 10.11.05 - 6:50 am | #

GCT,

You still don't get it. See the October 4, 2005 posting by David. I didn't ask you to trust in me. I am not your Saviour. I gave you Bible references. You have the truth in the Bible.

Also, here are some problems with evolutionists.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives...7/ feducci3.html

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/ar...archie/ fudd.htm

An evolutionist points out sloppy science (self fulfulling prophecy) involved with the circumstantial evidence. In a news story, today, this evolutionist in the articles above said that the feather marks are just decaying fat and he demonstrated with a buried dolphin.

It goes to show that circumstantial evidence of evolution is not to be taken as truth without proof.

You are who you are, GCT. The truth was presented, and you reject it. See Psalms 14:1, Proverbs 12:15, Proverbs 13:16, Proverbs 14:16, Proverbs 23:9.
Elvis | 10.11.05 - 6:49 pm | #

Um Elvis, what is your point? Also, note that the news story is not from today, but 1997. I certainly hope that was an honest mistake, or did you think I would be too stupid to see it?

One guy who accepts evolution has a problem with a specific hypothesis. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't think evolution is wrong because of it. See, that's how science works. People disagree, the scientific method is employed, tests are run, and we eventually come to agreement by obtaining more knowledge and running more tests. It's as simple as that. It's how we came up with evolution and why we abandoned special creation as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life.

OK, so you don't claim your interpretations are better than mine? I look at the Bible and when I interpret what it says, I don't see any reason to deny evolution. Now, you tell me that I'm wrong. So, why should I take your word for it? Why is my interpretation wrong?

Finally, I didn't say that the Bible is incompatible with science, I said that your interpretation of the Bible is incompatible, which is something you still have not addressed, thus continually showing your lack of intellectual honesty.
GCT | 10.12.05 - 6:58 am | #

Elvis, after looking again, it seems that you are talking about an article that came out today, but you did not reference it. Perhaps you could include a link?
GCT | 10.12.05 - 12:02 pm | #

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/ 2005...rufflesfeathers

As you can see, the date is October 11, 2005 for the article that showed up yesterday. What happened to your ability to do research?

I'll bet more than one evolutionist goes down this path. If you need it spelled out, it means evolution is built on flimsy science that can't be substantiated. People can and will twist their circumstantial evidence to fit what they want to see. Yet, people like you claim it to be true.

I've provided you answers to your questions, but you reject them under your misguided guise of "intellectual honesty/dishonesty." I do have to say that I've lost my common sense by continuing to "converse" with you who denies God's miracles.

You are way off again. Read Genesis 1 where God creates the animals and humans. It does not say that God made a monkey to turn into humans, nor does it say God made a fish to turn into salamanders and then lizards. The animals came as God created them. Evolution is not in Genesis 1.

Did you study the Bible or are you just reading random areas (pieces) to fit it into what you want it to say? Don't take my word for it. Study God's word yourself. See what God's truth has to say.
Elvis | 10.12.05 - 9:54 pm | #

Elvis,
If you want to bring an article into the discussion, it is up to you to provide the link, not up to me to go on potential wild goose chases looking for an article that you couldn't reference with even a title. I can do research, but I don't do wild goose chases.

So, let's talk about this article. You Creationists want it both ways, don't you? Feduccia does not deny evolution, he simply sees a different evolutionary path. See, that's how science works. He dissents, tests are run to see who is right. You would assert that evolution is dogma, but it clearly isn't, by your own example. Of course, you also want to assert that evolution is in crisis because we evolutionists can't get our story straight, right? But, that's how science works. We don't start with a single "inerrant" book and make the physical world fit around what's written.

Where did I deny God's miracles? I said that it was not germaine to the topic. Of course, your answer for why you accept physics while it contradicts the 6 day literal creation was "God's miracles" which is really no answer at all, for the reason that I outlined. Whether it was God's miracle that started the universe or not is a separate question as to whether you accept the physics that contradicts your literal interpretations.

I'll also note that you completely dodged my questions about your interpretations versus mine, except to ask if I read the Bible. Does it matter? I could be asking hypothetically and the question would still stand. So, let's see your answer, or don't you have one?
GCT | 10.13.05 - 6:45 am | #