ACLU Vs Creationism

[jlw]

Catholic2003:

Well, based on what the name “intelligent design” implies, I would think that the existence of the appendix (or the defective gene that would allow the body to synthesize vitamin C if it were corrected) in humans falsifies that theory. Maybe someone should start a “semi-intelligent design” theory.

If an evolutionary feature that developed on mammals showed up in a new species of insect, this would falsify universal common descent, a key aspect of evolution. Applying this to automobiles, we can see that cars do not have universal common descent, because it could not explain how intermittant wipers jumped from Ford automobiles to GM and Chrysler automobiles.

Well, aren’t Ford’s “Intellegently” designed??? Of course!!!

Don’t Fords break down though??? Yeah, wear and tear, defective parts, etc.

Does that negate the notion that intelligence was put into the design and CREATION of said vehicle??? NO.

God made us. God created us with some DESIGN FLAWS–ie original sin, limitations, phyical and mental crosses to bear, (and don’t forget FREE WILL to screw up).

That doesn’t negate His “intellegence”, does it??

 

[jlw]

Catholic2003:

The realm of science is defined by what can be determined using the scientific method. I doubt the existence of God can be proven by the scientific method. Hence the Holy Father’s statement that science cannot find the “final truth about mankind”.

Ah. I see why we are missing each other…

No one here was looking for a classroom to “PROVE God’s existence” through science today!!

Only that in the community of scientists, there is a growing number that are hypothesizing “intelligent design” based on scienctific research. It’s not theologians who are saying this, it’s quantum physicists who are saying this!!

This kind of discussion should be allowed in the classroom.

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

That doesn’t negate His “intellegence”, does it??

Then what would falsify the “scientific theory” of intelligent design? If nothing would, then it’s not science, it’s religion.

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

Ah. I see why we are missing each other…

I’m afraid I still don’t.

jlw:

No one here was looking for a classroom to “PROVE God’s existence” through science today!!

Okay.

jlw:

Only that in the community of scientists, there is a growing number that are hypothesizing “intelligent design” based on scienctific research. It’s not theologians who are saying this, it’s quantum physicists who are saying this!!

Some points:

• (1) I’m not finding any evidence for this in the biology departments of top universities.
• (2) If it’s not falsifiable, then it’s not science. If scientists are finding God in their spare time, that’s great, but it’s still not science.
• (3) Quantum physics has very little to do with evolution. If “intelligent design” is related to quantum physics, and if it is really a scientific theory, then it belongs in the physics curriculum, not the biology curriculum.

This kind of discussion should be allowed in the classroom.

Certainly, why “intelligent design” does not possess even the basic characteristics of a scientific theory should be discussed in the classroom. However, I don’t think that’s what the school district was trying to do.

 

[jlw]

I’m frustrated.

What do physics and biology have in common??

What does the fact that WE ARE HERE have to do with scientific laws of physics and thermodynamics??

Heck, what is science??

Somehow I think we have differing viewpoints on these basic questions.

 

[jlw]

Catholic2003:

Then what would falsify the “scientific theory” of intelligent design? If nothing would, then it’s not science, it’s religion.

Darwinism is a religion then.

 

[gilliam]

jlw:

Darwinism is a religion then.

It is for some

 

[HagiaSophia]

jlw:

Darwinism is a religion then.

Funny how a great many “isms” become a religion to many.

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

I’m frustrated.

Hey, we agree on something!

jlw:

What do physics and biology have in common??

Not a whole lot in my opinion. That’s why I’m wondering why you (and others) are bringing up quantum physics in a thread concerning what a proper biology curriculum should include.

jlw:

What does the fact that WE ARE HERE have to do with scientific laws of physics and thermodynamics??

Nothing. I have over 20 credit hours in university physics, including 6 hours at the graduate level, and I can’t think of a single time we discussed the fact that WE ARE HERE. That’s what the philosophy and religion departments were for.

jlw:

Heck, what is science??

Science is what can be studied by the scientific method, i.e., forming a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified, conducting experiments that either falsify or fail to falsify the hypothesis, and repeating. Science is divided into the physical sciences (including both physics and biology) and the social sciences (e.g., economics).

jlw:

Somehow I think we have differing viewpoints on these basic questions.

Perhaps. What do you consider to be within the realm of science?

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

Darwinism is a religion then.

Darwinism is a term used by creationists. Universal common descent is a scientific theory. It makes predictions, which can be falsified. When applied to something that is clearly the result of intelligent design, the automobile, it is readily falsified by the propagation of design improvements, such as the intermittent windshield wiper, across lines of ancestor-to-descendant.

 

[jlw]

Catholic2003:

Hey, we agree on something!

Not a whole lot in my opinion. That’s why I’m wondering why you (and others) are bringing up quantum physics in a thread concerning what a proper biology curriculum should include.

Nothing. I have over 20 credit hours in university physics, including 6 hours at the graduate level, and I can’t think of a single time we discussed the fact that WE ARE HERE. That’s what the philosophy and religion departments were for.

Science is what can be studied by the scientific method, i.e., forming a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified, conducting experiments that either falsify or fail to falsify the hypothesis, and repeating. Science is divided into the physical sciences (including both physics and biology) and the social sciences (e.g., economics).

What do you consider to be within the realm of science?

Physics and biology ARE related. They are BOTH a study of scientists. They rely on scientific laws of nature to form theories, design and perform tests and they do criss-cross. More and more, by the way.

Hypothesises ARE presupposisions, are they not? Conclusions based on a “If this, then therefore” basis, and so, to some degree, are philisophical in nature?? No??

Science is very much rooted in some kind of FAITH–faith in nature, faith in reason, (faith that there is no super-natural?). So in some small way, darwinist scientists are religious in their “faith”. They have “tenents” of their faith as much as a believer in the creationism. No??

 

[Catholic2003]

A scientific paper on the issue:

Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design, by Edward J. Behrman and George A. Marzluf, Department of Biochemistry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, and Ronald Bentley, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Case 5: Unnecessary Connections

DNA is double-stranded; one strand runs in the direction 5´ → 3´ and the other runs in the 3´ → 5´ direction. When DNA is replicated, one strand is made continuously in the 5´ → 3´direction, but the other strand is made discontinuously and in pieces (the Okazaki fragments) but also in the 5´ → 3´ direction. The pieces then have to be put together in a complicated way. We would have designed a system using two polymerase activities: the first using deoxyribonucleotide 5´-triphosphates and the second deoxyribonucleotide 3´-triphosphates. Then both strands could be made continuously.

What does it mean when human biologists can design a more efficient system than the Designer of “intelligent design”? Surely God is more intelligent that Drs. Behrman, Marzluf, and Bentley. Thus, for those of us who believe in God, this is proof that God used evolution rather than directly designing DNA.

The examples that we have noted argue for the absence of highly intelligent design. They are not intended as a comprehensive collection but as a limited sample of “inefficient” situations in metabolism. Students and instructors can readily unearth more to their own satisfaction. The current success in directed evolution shows that purposeful change, even by human intelligence, is not so difficult.

Notice that they can’t conclude that “intelligent design” has been falsified, because nobody can pin down exactly what constitutes “intelligent design”. This is what makes it a religion rather than a science.

 

[Catholic2003]

From the creationism versus evolution thread in the Apologetics Forum, it looks like the Dover school board is also trying to define pi as having the value 3.

If this is true, then I really don’t see how the ACLU is reaching at all by claiming that this is religion in a very obvious disguise.

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

Physics and biology ARE related. They are BOTH a study of scientists. They rely on scientific laws of nature to form theories, design and perform tests and they do criss-cross. More and more, by the way.

Very complicated and advanced quantum physics can make rather simple and elementary predictions in the realm of chemistry. In turn, very complicated chemistry can help with the predictions made in the realm of biology. I’m not aware of any impact of quantum physics on biology directly; certainly not as regards evolution.

jlw:

Hypothesises ARE presupposisions, are they not? Conclusions based on a “If this, then therefore” basis, and so, to some degree, are philisophical in nature?? No??

I would say no. Hypotheses are definite statements that make predictions that can be verified experimentally. In fact, the verification needs to be repeatable, across different scientists.

jlw:

Science is very much rooted in some kind of FAITH–faith in nature, faith in reason, (faith that there is no super-natural?). So in some small way, darwinist scientists are religious in their “faith”. They have “tenents” of their faith as much as a believer in the creationism. No??

There are apparently a few scientists who have jumped beyond science to make philosophical and religious conclusions. When they do this, they are no longer doing science. This is what the Holy Father was warning about, in my opinion.

When science is kept to science, I don’t see that faith is necessarily involved.

 

[Trelow]

Were there two different mud puddles?

Plants from animals, or animals from plants?

Never have got an anser to that one.

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

Were there two different mud puddles?

Plants from animals, or animals from plants?

Never have got an anser to that one.

Science doesn’t have all the answers. Good scientists don’t claim that it does. That doesn’t mean that the science curriculum should be a free-for-all of whatever fundamentalist Protestants want.

The consensus phylogenetic tree of all life can be found here.

 

[Trelow]

Looks like horse-**** to me.

 

[Catholic2003]

From a resolution of the AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world (emphasis in bold added):

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called “intelligent design theory,” also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of “intelligent design theory” into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents “intelligent design theory” to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of “intelligent design,” demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the “intelligent design theory” represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called “intelligent design theory” makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

There is simply no “big controversy” regarding evolution in the scientific community.

 

[Trelow]

Science is only as good as it’s tools.

What we thought was true 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago no longer holds up to modern technology and discoveries.

And so it will be with evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

A scientific paper on the issue:

Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design, by Edward J. Behrman and George A. Marzluf, Department of Biochemistry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, and Ronald Bentley, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

What does it mean when human biologists can design a more efficient system than the Designer of “intelligent design”? Surely God is more intelligent that Drs. Behrman, Marzluf, and Bentley. Thus, for those of us who believe in God, this is proof that God used evolution rather than directly designing DNA.

Notice that they can’t conclude that “intelligent design” has been falsified, because nobody can pin down exactly what constitutes “intelligent design”. This is what makes it a religion rather than a science.

If you run across a set of lettered cards and they are littered on the floor you would conclude what from this? If you run across this same set of cards arranged to spell a word what would you conclude? Extend this to a more complicated word? What do the probablities say about the more complicated word? Is the search for this empirical? Can we then assign them future probabilites and predict the odds of this same thing happening again? Does this qualify as science?