ACLU Vs Creationism

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Agreed. That doesn’t mean, however, that ID should be taught in science class.

Peace

Tim

Are you opposed to ID being taught in a non-science class? How about human biological origins being taugh in a non-science class?

 

[Brad]

Brad:

I’ll read part of it but not all.

Whoops - that sounded pretty bad - I meant to say “I’ve” not “I’ll”.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Brad]

How about these 2 books - one by a non-Christian and another by a non-creationist.

emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/books.htm#denton%201985

DENTON, Michael 1985
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Bethesda: Adler & Adler

Written by a non-Christian doctor and biologist. This book goes into much technical detail, but was written for the layman. He absolutely destroys the idea that macro-evolution is possible, using only accepted scientific data. The conclusion of the book is that evolution can’t be true, but that how we got here is unknown and maybe unknowable. A very valuable book. Some of the highlights from this book are covered in the Phillip Johnson book above. Hardback.

---

(Behe 1996)
BEHE, Michael 1996
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
New York: The Free Press

Written by a non-creationist Professor of Biochemistry, this book argues that the evidence of evolution’s limits are to be found in the field of biochemistry, where a world of Lilliputian complexity has been discovered. He believes the evidence clearly shows that biochemical machines have been designed.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Ok. You’ve told me that the scientists are not Catholic and that they believe in certain specifics of scripture (which, by the way, are not disallowed in the Catholic Church - I’m open to a 6 day creation or a 1 billion day creation).

Can you honestly tell me that many scientists coming through the universities do not presuppose the evolutionary theory of human biological origins? Just because they don’t have a “statement of faith” on paper does not mean it is not implied.

They “presuppose” the evolution of man because of the evidence, not because of faith.

You’ve told me yourself (essentially) that a scientist is not a scientist if he/she does not accept radiometric dating systems.

Then let me make myself a little clearer. If a scientist has a scientific objection to radiometric dating, he or she should make those objections in the way scientists argue - in a peer-reviewed publication.

That sounds to me like an unwritten “statement of faith” to be held to with “religous assent” by prospective scientists (forgive my catechism language borrowing).

That’s because that is what you want it to sound like.

Can you refute the evidence they show that seriously question the dating methods - most especially evidence that is tossed out if it doesn’t meet a pre-specified criteria?

Me personally, no. Those scientists who are experts in the field of radiometric dating can and have. That is explained in the link I gave you.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

You do realize this is arrogance?

Asking you a question is arrogance? Puleeze!!!

You are saying that I have to follow a certain code of practicing science in order to question scientific conclusions?

I asked the question because you continue to misrepresent the way science is done, even though you have been corrected. You keep implying that there is some unwritten code that all scientists must adhere to or they will be castigated and will lose all credibility. That is not so.

That sounds again like a “statement of faith” requirement put onto those that wish to practice science.

Only to you and only because those “scientists” that you have been relying on have been demonstrated to have signed a “statement of faith” that requires them to IGNORE any evidence that is contrary to their pre-supposed conclusion. This way you can say that all scientists do the same thing that your “scientists” do.

I wonder if Newton and Galileo were aware of exactly “how science works.”

Yes they were.

Considering I took science classes undergraduate - was that not far enought along that they should teach me how it works? When would that occur?

Elementary school? The scientific method should be one of the first things that anyone should learn when being taught science.

Why is it that professors in college don’t even know how science is supposed to work and yet they teach evolutionary theory as fact?

They do know how science works and that is why they teach evolution as a fact.

In any event, this is not my argument. I presume you know much more about areas of science than I do. My argument is that an alternative argument on human biological origins should be allowed to be taught in school.

As long as it is not in science class unless it is a scientific arguement, unlike ID.

Sure he is. He has a voice on this topic. You have to accept his voice. If not, you can’t argue for allowing the ACLU to intervene in schools because you are not a lawyer.

No he isn’t and no I don’t. I don’t argue for the ACLU for anything. They are one of the most detestible organizations I know of.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Are you opposed to ID being taught in a non-science class?

No.

How about human biological origins being taugh in a non-science class?

I wouldn’t oppose it any more that I would oppose the theory of relativity being taught in a non-science class, but it is science so it should be taught in science class.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Whoops - that sounded pretty bad - I meant to say “I’ve” not “I’ll”.

Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, I understood what you meant.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

How about these 2 books - one by a non-Christian and another by a non-creationist.

emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/books.htm#denton%201985

DENTON, Michael 1985
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Bethesda: Adler & Adler

Written by a non-Christian doctor and biologist. This book goes into much technical detail, but was written for the layman. He absolutely destroys the idea that macro-evolution is possible, using only accepted scientific data. The conclusion of the book is that evolution can’t be true, but that how we got here is unknown and maybe unknowable. A very valuable book. Some of the highlights from this book are covered in the Phillip Johnson book above. Hardback.

Did he publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed publication? I can’t find any info about that. I can only find references to his book, which is not a peer-reviewed document.

---

(Behe 1996)
BEHE, Michael 1996
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
New York: The Free Press

Written by a non-creationist Professor of Biochemistry, this book argues that the evidence of evolution’s limits are to be found in the field of biochemistry, where a world of Lilliputian complexity has been discovered. He believes the evidence clearly shows that biochemical machines have been designed.

Behe doesn’t actually present any evidence that evolution is wrong. His argument seems to be that it is too complicated to have occurred, ignoring all of the evidence that refutes his position.

Once again, where are the peer-reviewed articles?

Peace

Tim

 

[gilliam]

Orogeny:

Behe doesn’t actually present any evidence that evolution is wrong. His argument seems to be that it is too complicated to have occurred, ignoring all of the evidence that refutes his position.

He doesn’t have to. Evolution is the theory. They have to prove it is right. So far, that has not been done.

 

[theTaxCollector]

Orogeny:

They do know how science works and that is why they teach evolution as a fact.

I am definitely not well versed in science, but I have a couple questions that maybe someone can answer for me…

1. Regarding evolution, has there been actual observable proof thereby allowing scientists to conclude it is “fact”? For example, has someone actually witnessed an organism evolving into a higher being or genetically adapting to ‘better’ handle its surroundings?
2. Is circumstantial evidence allowed in the determination of “fact”?
3. Isn’t all of science based on the assumption that we can find Truth? Doesn’t religion have the same basis?

Peace.

 

[Orogeny]

gilliam:

He doesn’t have to. Evolution is the theory. They have to prove it is right. So far, that has not been done.

Actually, because the evidence is so massive for evolution, anyone presenting a hypothesis that evolution is wrong must prove their position. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none that I know of against it. I could be wrong on that because I am not a biologist, but I have looked for evidence against evolution and haven’t found any that is credible.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

theTaxCollector:

I am definitely not well versed in science, but I have a couple questions that maybe someone can answer for me…

1. Regarding evolution, has there been actual observable proof thereby allowing scientists to conclude it is “fact”? For example, has someone actually witnessed an organism evolving into a higher being or genetically adapting to ‘better’ handle its surroundings?

Yes.

1. Is circumstantial evidence allowed in the determination of “fact”?

Yes.

1. Isn’t all of science based on the assumption that we can find Truth? Doesn’t religion have the same basis?

Yes.

Peace

Tim

 

[gilliam]

Orogeny:

Actually, because the evidence is so massive for evolution, anyone presenting a hypothesis that evolution is wrong must prove their position. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none that I know of against it. I could be wrong on that because I am not a biologist, but I have looked for evidence against evolution and haven’t found any that is credible.

No, evolution is a scientific theory, it must be proven scientifically to become a law. Evidence or not, the scientific method requires those who want us to believe it is true to scientifically prove it is true, that has not happened.

It is not a requirement of anyone else to prove it is wrong.

Unless those who belive in evolution think of it as a religious belief now, and not scientific fact.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

A component of evolution is the study of human biological origins. Without question, this part of the scientific study is not considered scientific fact by a great number of scientists.

I’m not seeing this. At most, it seems like there are a handful of Ph.D. biologists/biochemists/bioinformaticists that have a problem with evolution as a scientific fact. Can you provide any support for this widespread scientific dissent?

Here is an excerpt from the American Institute of Biological Sciences’ press release “Scientific Community Unites Against Kansas Board of Education Evolution Decision”:

“Virtually all credible scientists believe that it is morally reprehensible to intentionally withhold knowledge from our children,” says SSE President-Elect Michael Lynch of the University of Oregon. “No well-educated person wants to raise their children in an atmosphere of censorship.”

…

At best, the omissions de-emphasize the importance of a fundamental scientific concept. As former Evolution Editor and MacArthur award winner G. Vermeij explains, “Evolution—descent with modification—is one of the most fundamental ideas in science. It touches almost every other discipline of knowledge, including medicine, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other social sciences.”

Lynch adds, “The establishment of evolution as a universal process of living systems, and the repeated verification of this fact, is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. To deny students access to this fact, and information on the discoveries leading to it, is the equivalent of denying the foundations of mathematics or modern chemistry.”

At worst, the omissions ensure an uninformed, second-class society. “We are quite concerned about the possibility of other state boards of education allowing the same error committed in Kansas,” says ASB President Patricia Parr. "The results would be disastrous for the future of this nation."

AIBS Executive Director Richard O’Grady agrees. “The scientific community decries any attempt to hobble legitimate scientific investigation and education. Just because a segment of the population doesn’t tell its children about scientific discoveries and theories doesn’t mean those discoveries and theories don’t exist, aren’t known to other people, and won’t affect the children’s lives—it simply ensures that the children will not be given the opportunity to learn about, evaluate, and agree or disagree with significant areas of human knowledge.”

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

I’m not seeing this. At most, it seems like there are a handful of Ph.D. biologists/biochemists/bioinformaticists that have a problem with evolution as a scientific fact.

My understanding is that they have not proven the mechanism of evolution. That is the big area of the theory. If scientists have proven the mechanism, then we would probably be referring to evolution as a law, not as a theory.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is another question: How much science do we throw out because of perceived conflicts with people’s private interpretations of Genesis?

Should someone in a paternity suit be allowed to dismiss all DNA evidence against him on the reasoning that since DNA analysis shows that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, it isn’t a reliable means of determining descent? After all, any similarity between his DNA and the baby’s can be explained by the fact that they both were intelligently designed by the same creator. Is this a kind of defense that the Thomas More Law Society should take up?

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

Here is another question: How much science do we throw out because of perceived conflicts with people’s private interpretations of Genesis?

Should someone in a paternity suit be allowed to dismiss all DNA evidence against him on the reasoning that since DNA analysis shows that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, it isn’t a reliable means of determining descent? After all, any similarity between his DNA and the baby’s can be explained by the fact that they both were intelligently designed by the same creator. Is this a kind of defense that the Thomas More Law Society should take up?

I don’t think we should throw out science, but we shouldn’t make evolution into a theology either.

 

[Catholic2003]

gilliam:

My understanding is that they have not proven the mechanism of evolution. That is the big area of the theory. If scientists have proven the mechanism, then we would probably be referring to evolution as a law, not as a theory.

I don’t think you can read too much into whether something is called a law or a theory. In mathematics, “Fermat’s Last Theorem” has been called this for centuries, but it wasn’t a theorem until Andrew Wiles proved it in 1994. Most mathematicians still refer to “Bertrand’s Postulate”, even though Chebyshev proved it a few years after Bertrand made the conjecture. Sometimes names just stick.

As I have mentioned, not many physicists think of G=8piT as something that is likely to be absolutely true (because of quantum mechanics considerations), but there are entire physics courses that study general relativity without having to stop every lecture to point out this observation. I know, I took one.

Back on topic, the theory/law/whatever of universal common descent makes several important predictions, without being concerned with the specific mechanism of evolution. I’ve mentioned the prediction that design improvements can only pass to descendants; this prediction alone disproves the universal common descent of American automobiles because of the intermittent windshield wiper. Here is another verification (from Talk.Origin):

Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters

Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994).

Confirmation:

Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes (Rouquier et al. 2000), the RT6 protein gene (Haag et al. 1994), the galactosyl transferase gene (Galili and Swanson 1991), and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) (Oetting et al. 1993).

I don’t understand the creationist’s and/or intelligent design crowd’s fascination with the mechanism of evolution, given that universal common descent (specifically, the idea that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor) seems to be what they find most objectionable from a religious point of view.

Intelligent design (ID) seems to be nothing more than the statement that random mutation coupled with “survival of the fittest” isn’t the correct mechanism of evolution. Even if you allow the jump from “non-random” to “intelligent”, is everyone here okay with humans and monkeys having a common ancestor, as long as the mutations were guided by an intelligence?

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

I don’t think you can read too much into whether something is called a law or a theory.

Well, anyone can pose a theory. (e.g., I can say you are green. It is a theory.) Once it has been independently proven or repeated, it is a law. If you throw out the idea that there is any difference between a theory and a law, you throw out the scientific method.

 

[Catholic2003]

gilliam:

Well, anyone can pose a theory. (e.g., I can say you are green. It is a theory.) Once it has been independently proven or repeated, it is a law. If you throw out the idea that there is any difference between a theory and a law, you throw out the scientific method.

The important thing is that a scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested, and as those predictions are independently and repeatedly tested and verified, that scientific theory becomes more and more accepted by the scientific community.

There is no “magic point” at which a theory becomes a law, and no longer subject to falsification. Witness the upheaval of Newtonian physics (including Newton’s Laws of Motion and Law of Gravity) by Einstein’s special and general relativity.

In teaching science, the theory with the most supporting evidence at the time is the one that should be taught.