Except that there's this religious document called "The Bible", that says God created everything, which overlaps and conflicts with reality - I mean scientific theory.The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, ...
May or may not be germane:
“…Biology, as George Wald has said, was a unique science because it could not define its subject matter. Nobody had a definition for life. Nobody knew what it was, really. The old definitions- an organism that showed ingestion, excretion, metabolism, reproduction, and so on- were worthless. One could always find exceptions.
This group had finally concluded that energy conversion was the hallmark of life. All living organisms in some way took in energy- as food, or sunlight- and converted it to another form of energy, and put it to use (viruses were the exception to this rule, but the group was prepared to define viruses as nonliving.)
For the next meeting, Leavitt was asked to prepare a rebuttal to the definition. He pondered it for a week, and returned with three objects: a swatch of black cloth, a watch, and a piece of granite. He set them down before the group and said, “Gentlemen, I give you three living things.”
He then challenged the team to prove that they were not living. He placed the black cloth in the sunlight; it became warm. This, he announced, was an example of energy conversion- radiant energy to heat.
It was objected that this was merely passive energy absorption, not conversion. It was also objected that the conversion, if it could be called that, was not purposeful. It served no function.
“How do you know it is not purposeful?” Leavitt had demanded.
They then turned to the watch. Leavitt pointed to the radium dial, which glowed in the dark. Decay was taking place, and the light was being produced.
The men argued that this was merely release of potential energy held in unstable electron levels. But there was growing confusion; Leavitt was making his point.
Finally, they came to the granite. “This is alive,” Leavitt said. “It is living, breathing, walking and talking. Only we cannot see it, because it is happening too slowly. Rock has a lifespan of three billion years. We have a lifespan of sixty or seventy years. We cannot see what is happening to this rock for the same reason that we cannot make out the tune on a record being played at the rate of one revolution every century. And the rock, for its part, is not even aware of our existence because we are alive for only a brief instant of its lifespan. To it, we are like flashes in the dark.”
-From Michael Chricton’s “The Andromeda Strain” 1969
Shwing
I've long been partial to Dave Barry's definition: "Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
The left-handed and right-handed optical isomers of the amino acid valine. Credit: http://www.sp.uconn.edu
Track length 03:38"Misty" featuring Johnny Mathis
CLICK on the record icon (above) if you wish to play the audio segment that was selected for this post. CLICK on RinselTunes™ if you would like to make your own audio selection. CLICK on AskRinselTunes to ask rinselberg about the reason for an audio selection, and be sure to include a post title, post number or other information sufficient to identify a specific post in your inquiry.
I like to call the idea that humanity has been deliberately created by an intelligent designer (who may or may not be God ...), instead of evolving through randomly-driven Darwinian processes, "Intelligent Biological Design". It's more commonly known as "Intelligent Design" or "ID". One of the observations that ID advocates have brought to center stage is the phenomenon of biological homochirality. The first example that comes to mind is that all known terrestrial life forms exhibit DNA that is composed only from left-handed amino acids. How could this have happened, except by a process of deliberate design? Or, as I lifted from a previous poster on this thread:A recent laboratory experiment illustrates how left-handed amino acids could have become the exclusive biological component, through randomly-driven Darwinian processes:Every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form, and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called "optical isomers." In nature, the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in roughly equal frequency, but functioning proteins will only tolerate left-handed amino acids. Yet, the statistical probability of randomly attaining only L-form amino acids in a peptide chain is roughly one chance in 10 raised to the 30th power!I lifted that from a press release of the Imperial College London, dated 21-Jun-2004, and posted under the title How left-handed amino acids got ahead.A chemical reaction that demonstrates how key molecules in the biological world might have come to be predominately left or right handed has been reported by scientists at Imperial College London.
Ever since discovering that the building blocks of the biological world, such as amino acids and sugars, are distinctively left or right handed - possessing a quality known as chirality - scientists have been puzzling to answer how and why.
They believe that at the dawn of biological life there were even numbers of molecules in each form, but through hitherto unknown processes, one particular form came to completely dominate over the others (for example left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars), a feature known as homochirality.
Now, using simple organic molecules, the Imperial researchers have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product. Importantly, the experiment works in similar conditions to those expected around pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved.
The research is published this week in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition ...
Neo-Darwinists use the term "frozen accident" to convey the idea that the very first or "root" node on the evolutionary tree - i.e., the very first life form to develop - was composed with only the left-handed forms of amino acids, and then passed that trait forward to all subsequent life forms that emerged, through the processes of Neo-Darwinian (or genetic) evolution. And it may not have been just a random or 50/50 chance that the left-handed forms came to dominate instead of the right-handed forms: It's been observed that the effects of magnetic fields, and/or circularly polarized UV light from neutron stars, could have tipped the balance in favor of left-handed amino acids in the chemical environment that predated and eventually gave rise to life on earth. This is my interpretation of an article that was posted, along with some additional discussion, under the title The Left Hand of Darwin. That website is known as "The Panda's Thumb".
rinselberg has posted previously on Neo-Darwinism Vs. Intelligent (Biological) Design, and on Theology, via:
Post title: NOMA: An Rx for the faithful from Stephen Jay Gould
Subject: The nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=149
Post title: New fossil evidence for macroevolution: Birds from dinosaurs.
Subject: New fossil reveals a bird-like creature with a dinosaur-like foot.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=144
Updated with a new audio segment.
Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133
Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ...
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129
Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64
Post title: RinselNews™ - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265
Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to ksquared's discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161
Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59
OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-12-2005 at 01:37 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
I put this one - chirality, under the normal ID trait - "er - I dont understand it, it is so amazing, it must have been god"
Thalidomide is a sedative drug that was prescribed to pregnant women. When taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, Thalidomide prevented the proper growth of the foetus, resulting in horrific birth defects in thousands of children around the world. Why? The Thalidomide molecule is chiral. There are left and right-handed Thalidomides. The drug was a 50/50 mixture. The left handed molecule, was a sedative, whereas the right one was found later to cause foetal abnormalities. The tragedy is claimed to have been entirely avoidable had the physiological properties of the individual thalidomide molecules been tested prior to use
So what has this to do with this discussion - well chirality is effected by evoloution too, it is just the lefthanded molecule won. There are a lot of theories why - rotation of the earth, magnetic fields, or just plain evoloution of the fittest. It must be noted that many examples of chirality in chemistry and physics show a left handed pre-dominance. Just as Thalidomide is chiral, and has very different properties to its left or right handed version, many other chemicals and structures are too... If Thalidomide was a factor in evoloution, one would see that it is pretty obvious that the left hand molecule would have predominance in cases of selection
There are two new and superbly written articles on the Internet about Evolution, that also discuss Intelligent Design. These articles are scholarly, but written for a lay audience.
"Better Living Through Evolution"
The science of novelty and complexity in life forms
by Daniel L. Hartl
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110512.html
"Intelligent Evolution"
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
rinselberg has posted previously on Neo-Darwinism Vs. Intelligent (Biological) Design, and on Theology, via:
Post title: The Left Hand of Charles Darwin
Subject: Neo-Darwinists address the issue of biochemical homochirality
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=154
Post title: NOMA: An Rx for the faithful from Stephen Jay Gould
Subject: The nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=149
Post title: New fossil evidence for macroevolution: Birds from dinosaurs.
Subject: New fossil reveals a bird-like creature with a dinosaur-like foot.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=144
Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133
Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ...
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129
Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64
Post title: RinselNews™ - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265
Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to ksquared's discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161
Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-27-2006 at 01:27 PM.
There are some who say that Intelligent Design is the wave of the future. Let them come to OptiBoard.
I think that there is a tendency among some who favor the idea of Intelligent (Biological) Design, over Darwinian evolution, to confuse the technical or biometric meaning of the term "information" or "information content", with intelligence.Originally Posted by ksquared
credit: http://www.genomesize.com/index.php
I have posted (above) a representation of genome size, as scientists have been able to measure it, for an almost encyclopedic range of life forms. An organism's "C-value" is the amount of DNA in a single copy of its genome. This chart expresses C-values in units of mass, using the pg - picogram, or one-trillionth of a gram. There is a straightforward conversion formula for translating C-values from pg to Mb (megabase) - a biometric measure of information content, similar to (although not the same as) the Mb (megabytes) that are so familiar to PC and Mac users. Basically, if scientists know the mass of an organism's DNA, they can extrapolate very directly to its information content: The number of amino acids (the "instructions") in the genetic code that comes into play when the organism replicates itself in the form of offspring.
There seems to be no correlation whatsoever between an organism's genetic information content, as expressed in terms of C-value, and its complexity - in an intuitive sense.
Humans (homo sapiens) have a C-value of 3.50 pg - not even at the upper end of the range for mammals. We're actually just about average, in terms of the size of our DNA, for a mammal. That range tops out at 8.40 pg of DNA - for tympanoctomys barrerae - the red viscacha rat!
But there's even worse, if we look "down" our evolutionary nose at "lowly" salamanders and lungfish - they have more DNA than any mammal, including us. Among the creatures that are too small to see except with a microscope, genome size can be almost anything - from as little as 0.0023 pg for the parasitic microsporidium encephalitozoon intestinalis, to as much as 1,400 (one thousand, four hundred) pg in the free-living amoeba chaos chaos: This amoeba's genome is between 100 and 1000 times larger than a human's!
So a statement like the one I quoted from another poster (at the very top here), which compares the information content of an amoeba's DNA to 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is very problematic, in terms of how it might support either evolution or Intelligent (Biological) Design.
I think that Neo-Darwinists have a LOT on their docket here, that needs to be sorted out.
But, on the other hand, I think that Intelligent Design advocates are facing an even BIGGER problem here, with respect to their point of view.
What do you think?
For more on the exact topic of this post, see C-value enigma, C-value, genome size and junk DNA.
To see what some OptiBoarders had to say about the human eye and its implications for the modern theory of evolution (November 2000):
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1566
For more online reading (including a number of my own recent posts) about Charles Darwin, the modern theory of evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design, scroll back up to the post just above (156), or open a new browser window by clicking on this URL:
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=156
Last edited by rinselberg; 01-18-2006 at 01:03 AM.
That, was one of the best comments so far in this thread. the other thought on this matter is the quality of the information, and instructional information. I could repersent a list, of numbers from 1 - 1000, like this
Computer code: for I = 1 to 1000, print I, next I; (this will generate a list of numbers from 1 to 1000)
or, descriptivley: list every number from 1 to 1000
or, long hand
1
2
3
....
998
999
1000
the final information list is the same, the amount of information is massivley different
If you walk away from evolution and embrace ID, then you need to accept the notion of God (yeah, it's not necessarily God, just some vague Intelligent Designer. Right...) as a bumbler given to fits and starts and random decisions--why the appendix for instance, or why are various species bound by geography--seems to me God could have let us have those cute koalas and kangaroos in this hemisphere. What is this, God as Bill Clinton, I did it because I could?
It just makes no sense that God or any ID would give us humans bodies whose various parts disintegrate at such widely varying rates.
Whatever.
Some would probably argue that presbyopia, to name just one instance of time-release disintegration, was part of His Divine Plan. Probably only in the large-print editions of the Bible, though.
LOL:bbg:
Panderichthys - credit: http://www.capaventure.fr
Researchers say reexamination of a fossil fish suggests how our ears could have evolved from more primitive organs. The sound conducting middle ear of land animals appears to have evolved from an auxiliary breathing chamber used by prehistoric fish. Critics of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including ID (Intelligent Design) advocates, have questioned how a complex organ like the eye (or ear ) could have evolved in stages, when having just part of an eye (or ear) would seem not to offer the competitive advantage required for natural selection: "Survival of the fittest."But some scientists remain skeptical - and the new "ear hypothesis" would require a revision of some earlier thinking on this topic by evolutionists."This is another nail in the coffin of the creationist view, in my opinion," said Mark W. Westneat, an associate curator of zoology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. "It is a great fill-in-the-gap story that shows a [clear-cut transitional form] at an important point in evolution."
For more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913802/
Last edited by rinselberg; 01-22-2006 at 03:51 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
Yes, Chairtime, that's what I meant. True about the "unguided missles". That would promote "panspermia", not intelligent design.
I would agree to that, with one disclosure (and I picked it up on this board, somewhere, as a linked quote, and I grossly paraphrase): "Science is the endeavor to explain the physical universe without reference to a God".
Can we agree on that?
If so, then I think intelligent design version #1 (secular) would NOT be taught, since it's not very accepted.
Intelligent design version #2 (creationist) would NOT be taught, either, except in religious institutions.
I do think that the subset of I.D. proponents that are Christian creationist (the majority?) are barking up the wrong tree, on this issue. If they want a creationist viewpoint taught, they're going to have to do that on their own.
A much better use of their time would be to fight for school vouchers.
I think after this thread has rambled for so long, a few points need to be made:
1.) Intelligent design proponents don't buy evolutionary theory.
2.) Evolutionary theorists don't buy I.D. theory.
3.) Evolution is put "on the defensive", so to speak, by the I.D. issue, and evolution proponents are fighting back.
4.) Whether evolution or I.D. is appropriate to be taught in schools, one could argue about many, many other curricula issues as well as philosophy of education issues. That's only a drop in the bucket.
5.) The existence of God cannot be proven tautologically, nor empirically. It can be inferred from interpretation of the evidence.
6.) Interpretation of the evidence may lead one to see lack of God's existence, as well. Interpretation on such giant issues will vary widely!
7.) In a nutshell, all who believe in God (as He is commonly known in this culture) are hypocrites if they believe in evolution.
8.) If you wish to believe in the randomness of evolution and the long time frame it takes, and you are not bothered by the liklihood issues (which, BTW, we all should admit we are in an unlikely position to be reading this), and you want to believe in a form of god, you have some 'splainin' to do. You will be best served by your own creativity, or embracing an eastern religion.
9.) If you are an atheist, then by definition you believe in the eternal universe and the logical necessity of evolution, otherwise you could not support your atheism. Nothing wrong with that. Consistent.
10.) While discussions of the interpretation of the physical evidence is fun, it really doesn't convince everyone. I think, though, that it should be apparent that there are reasonably consistent arguments on both sides (however mutually exclusive in truth content).
11.) It all comes down to if you believe in God, and what kind of God you believe in, doesn't it?
Well I believe in God and I believe in evolution so I guess I'm a hypocrite. Heck I've been called worse. (This is the de facto position of the Catholic Church FYI).
Hi, CHM.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume that you have sort of a "theistic evolutionary" stance? God was the source of the universe, but He put forces into play that were random, but He knew that life would evolve (being all-knowing)?
This God has some communication with us, somehow, but certainly not through the "easy-to-misinterpret"/"partially redacted"/"can't-really-tell-what's-allegory-from-what's-historical" Bible? I mean, some of it is good, but...the rest? All-in-all, we can't really put much trust in the Bible, right?
This God is difficult to know and understand with any degree of certainty, so one's belief about God just about equals another's? I won't impose my view of God on you, and you don't impose your view of God on me, right?
Let's be frank...we're not talking about something "real", here. This whole thing is subjective, subjective, subjective. In today's "it's a small world afterall" milieu, it's just plain offensive to take God that seriously. Have some couth and get along. That's what's really important!
Am I even close?
Last edited by drk; 01-19-2006 at 02:57 PM.
No.
How 'bout:
"Science is the endeavor to explain the physical universe."
Better still:
"Religion is the endeavor to explain the physical universe using only references to a God."
Don't pollute your humanistic endeavor of science with mention of God, huh? OK, I'll bite on your definition of that in which you trust. But let me define mine, then:
"Religion is the discipline that explains God's meaning and purpose for our lives, and the events in history and the future, as God has revealed them, including an explanation of creation. Science (our science, not yours) endeavors to explain the physical universe in detail to understand and appreciate God's handiwork and to use creation as God intended us to."
Bet you don't like that, do you, Spartus? You want to lay claim on "science", but "science the process" vs. "science the belief system" are not the same thing.
You should check out the religious beliefs of your science icons, sometime. You seem more philosophical than scientific, though, if I do say, Spartus. Maybe your icons are the existentialists, for all I know.
I don't really understand your POV but I'll give it a shot.
Certainly religion is absolutely subjective in the sense there is no "objective" proof. And I am not a big fan of imposing my view, or your view, or Joe Blow's view, on anyone. And the Bible in my opinion is largely parable and oral history.
I don't know if I agree that God is not fashionable, but even if that's so, it really doesn't make much difference. The essence of fashion is that it changes.
There was a big story on last night's news about an article published in L'Obsservature Romano (Vatican newpaper) that re-confirms the Church's support for evolution and rejection of ID. Explains what I believe much more eloquently that I can.
http://news.com.com/Intelligent+desi...3-6028924.html
I'm not being adversarial, I'm attempting to get you to stop trying to drag religion into places where it doesn't belong.
I don't have a single problem with it. That definition is a great deal broader than your first, hackneyed attempt at it. I don't know what the difference between "my" science and "your" science is, though. But I bet you'll tell me now that I've taken the bait.
But before you do, I have to mention that the way you're trying to define science as a "belief system" is the way a liverwurst sandwich is a salad bar. If you want to get that loose with the definition, traffic lights are a belief system, since I only "believe" the lights going to turn green after I've stopped at a red. And you call me existential. Hmph.
My trading card set of the Great Thinkers of the Post-Enlightenment Era does that for me already, thanks. Got three mint John Stuart Mills that I'll trade for a near-mint or better Einstein if you've got it.
All kidding aside, how many times do I have to explain this, anyway? The personal religious convictions of others have no bearing on what I think of them. You, you're an interesting guy, fun to argue with about silly stuff like this. However, I think you're much more religious than is really necessary, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to pick your brain and continue to poke and prod back and forth with all this.
What I like about our conversations is that you'll reply honestly and forthrightly to the more difficult-to-answer questions that I've posed, unlike a few others I may have interacted with lately. ;)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Thank you, Spartus, for the congeniality.
I have never been able to get this point across, effectively, ever, but I'm going to try again.
Let's de-construct the gestalt "science":
Its end is to understand for intellectual satisfaction, and to practically apply the knowledge, ultimately.
Its methods are essentially to use "empiricism"; an objective measure of the objective. Testing like with like.
Its collective body of work is a mixed bag, some true and correct, some less so.
That, I believe, unless I'm missing something, is the whole of science.
Now, let's contrast that to "naturalism":
Naturalism is the point-of-view that everything that exists is, essentially, within a closed system, nature. Anything outside that system is unknowable and, essentially, so speculative as to be practically useless.
People in our current system of science have adopted the naturalistic precept more, and more, and more, to the degree that it is now confused with naturalism and is inseparable from it, in some people's mind.
There, however, is no monopoly on the use of scientific methodology towards scientific aims. Anyone can apply them, even theists, such as myself, and "science" is not proprietary to the "ensconced scientific community" any more than music is proprietary to professional musicians.
What you apparently are, is a naturalist, not a scientist. If you want to maintain (to your above point) a belief system of naturalism, you are as free to do so as you can possibly be. As a theist, I am likewise free to use science to question the body of work science has accumulated, including the evolutionary theory, as many find scientific fault with evolutionary theory, and as anyone who really knows much about evolution is well aware of it's problems (regardless of whether they want to continue using the theory as a valid explanation or not).
As to intelligent design, in the most basic sense, most people of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-monotheistic-Western-religion should logically and faithfully be forced to admit that they believe it. As to the intelligent design movement, it is nothing more than a continuation of the culture clash between religious people and secularists.
This whole debate is on-point ONLY when debating the issue of religion vs. secularism in our society, NOT when either evolution as a scientific theory or Christian belief is being assailed/apologized for.
My point "science can be defined as the attempt to explain the universe without the reference to God" was a hybridized definition I adopted in concession to the ignorant but ubiquitous confusion between science and naturalism.
You apparently have the position that the appropriate marginalization of religious thought and/or the sanctity of "science" disallows the juxtaposition of the word "God" and "science". You confuse political rights for intellectual concepts, apparently. Just because you want your "freedom from religion" (a right not guaranteed, anywhere), you don't want to address the theological aspects of human existence and would prefer to address only the naturalistic ones. That, sir, is tyranny; in a free-thinking society, why should not all perspectives be allowed into discussion?
"Why...why...it's SCIENCE class, for crying out loud" you may say. "Why should we debate such wide-ranging theories as creationism vs. evolution? No, WE THE PEOPLE have spoken: the only OFFICIAL PERSPECTIVE that we will allow in PUBLIC schools is "Scientific Naturalism". All the while, most do not understand that what is being taught as objective fact has many, many, many unanswered questions and is riddled with near-fatal flaws. My opinion is that ignorance is begetting ignorance: because the general lack of critical thought, people are way to quick to defer to a bearded, tenured, middle-aged man with academic credentials to do academics. If "science" has the temerity to claim to explain the origins of man and the universe, it ought to have the intellectual guts to debate all comers on a level playing field.
I would not dismiss the intelligent design movement, as it is but a single tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster that is "the religious right". Enjoy your spoils in an ongoing culture battle that you unfortunately are destined to win. If I may say, though, the war goes to our side.
Last edited by drk; 01-21-2006 at 12:33 PM.
This Wikipedia Online article Origin of Life surprised me - I wasn't expecting so much interesting material, and I didn't realize how many different theories are still in play.
If you would like to contemplate how life may have appeared on earth without the assistance of an Intelligent Designer(s), this is a good place to start, if you haven't been there already.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
OK, a researcher takes a closer look at the fossil of a pre-historic fish and finds what appears to be an auxiliary breathing chamber. Next he/she takes a look at the middle ears of some land animals and observes some similarities in the bone structure. So what conclusions can be drawn?
If: You don’t want to be branded as a Bible-thumping creationist, or a wacko, or lose your research funding, you conclude the middle ears of land animals appear to have evolved from the auxiliary breathing chamber of a pre-historic fish.
Else: You conclude that one prehistoric fish has an auxiliary breathing chamber and land animals have middle ears.
One of the problems with the fossil record is that it’s inconsistent with gradualism (ie: an auxiliary breathing chamber step by stepping into the middle ear of a land animal). Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear. Any morphological change is usually limited and directionless. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by a steady transformation of its ancestors; they appear all at once and “fully formed” (Stephen J. Gould – Evolution’s Erratic pace). What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin.
But even if we were able to overcome the huge gaps in the fossil record by finding the rest of the missing intermediate forms, this still wouldn’t prove a link between a fish and a land animal. 99% of the biology of any organism resides in the soft anatomy so it would be very difficult to establish a an ancestral relationship between a fish and a land animal by looking at its fossil remains. In other words, “1%” may not provide enough evidence.
Last edited by ksquared; 01-22-2006 at 12:05 AM.
Debt Crisis 2011: All the ostensible nobility in the world notwithstanding, we have run out of other people's money to spend.
Well, ksquared, it's not too hard to identify some of the current and future research problems for Neo-Darwinian evolutionists - like this conversation we've just been having about the evolution of the human ear.
What I haven't been able to see, to date, is how these currently unsolved problems for the Darwinists move us away from the still evolving theory of evolution, and towards any of the theories of Intelligent (Biological) Design.
Last edited by rinselberg; 01-22-2006 at 03:36 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks