Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tiny note about DNA/genes. These 20,000–25,000 genes, including billions of chemical base pairs, are the machinery which produces individuals, human and otherwise. The point is not necessarily common descent. More accurately, the point is that many living organisms have similar needs and thus similar machinery to meet these needs. Both elephants and humans need to eat in order to live. Even plants need nourishment.

The essential difference between humans, elephants, and plants is that humans have a spiritual soul which did not emerge from a material/physical source but was directly created by God.
 
grannymh said:
Tiny note about DNA/genes. These 20,000–25,000 genes, including billions of chemical base pairs, are the machinery which produces individuals, human and otherwise. The point is not necessarily common descent. More accurately, the point is that many living organisms have similar needs and thus similar machinery to meet these needs. Both elephants and humans need to eat in order to live. Even plants need nourishment.

The essential difference between humans, elephants, and plants is that humans have a spiritual soul which did not emerge from a material/physical source but was directly created by God.
Click to expand...
So if DNA is not passed on by descent, does God create each individual fungus, elephant and person? Is there evidence for this, rather than the much more obvious path of descent?
 
Hokomai said:
So if DNA is not passed on by descent, does God create each individual fungus, elephant and person? Is there evidence for this, rather than the much more obvious path of descent?
Click to expand...
Yes God does create each living thing. He allows parents to cooperate with Him in that creation.

Pax
 
Hokomai said:
DNA is passed on by descent.

All living things share DNA.

Therefore all living things have common ancestors.

This is fact.

The Theory(ies) of Evolution provides a scientific explanation for the variation between living things, given the fact of their common ancestry.

Intelligent design does not.

The Theory(ies) of Evolution do not address the issue of the origin of life. Saying so is not an argument against the Theory(ies) of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Common building blocks are used in design.
 
Hokomai said:
So if DNA is not passed on by descent, does God create each individual fungus, elephant and person? Is there evidence for this, rather than the much more obvious path of descent?
Click to expand...
The DNA of what the creature started as is passed on through the mother.
 
Hokomai said:
So if DNA is not passed on by descent, does God create each individual fungus, elephant and person? Is there evidence for this, rather than the much more obvious path of descent?
Click to expand...
The issue of DNA descent is a different topic from what was in my post 80. That post only addressed present day genetic information. That post did not necessarily address common descent because current knowledge is separate. Hopefully, I explained that right.

Your question in post 83 “And do the parents cooperate by passing on DNA?” is the better one to ask. My apology, but I need to leave. However, I find the Catholic explanation the most logical one for explaining all the aspects found in the human being. If someone does not post that explanation, I will get back to it eventually.
 
buffalo said:
Correct, but the preserving DNA comes from the mother.
Click to expand...
What is the preserving DNA? If you are thinking about dominant and recessive genes, those can come from either the paternal or maternal ancestral line. Please note that I recognize a line of demarcation with the advent of the first human being.
Due to a commitment, I will be back eventually so there is no hurry to answer.
 
grannymh said:
What is the preserving DNA? If you are thinking about dominant and recessive genes, those can come from either the paternal or maternal ancestral line. Please note that I recognize a line of demarcation with the advent of the first human being.
Due to a commitment, I will be back eventually so there is no hurry to answer.
Click to expand...
No. Facilitated variation shows that the conserved core process remain the same during reproduction. The mothers egg has everything required - its architecture and machinery. DNA signals that more raw materials be made, but the architecture and machinery are provided by the mother.
 
News Update

Indiana Senate broadens creationism teaching proposal
Legislators have broadened a proposal aimed at allowing Indiana’s public schools to teach creationism in science classes to require that such courses include origin of life theories from multiple religions.
Click to expand...
The change proposed by Democratic Sen. Vi Simpson of Bloomington says any course offered by public schools teaching creationism must include origin theories from multiple religions, among them Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.
Click to expand...
“It does make it clear that a school board can’t just say we’re only going to teach Christian creation theory but we also have to cover other multiple religions,” Simpson said.
Click to expand...
courier-journal.com/article/20120131/NEWS02/301310054/bill-on-creationism-amended?odyssey=nav|head

The bill still needs to be approved by the full Indiana Senate, before being sent to the Indiana House for consideration.
 
Dale_M said:
News UpdateIndiana Senate broadens creationism teaching proposal. The bill still needs to be approved by the full Indiana Senate, before being sent to the Indiana House for consideration.
Click to expand...
Dale, one difficulty is that the academic year has a set length, around 180 days. If a district were to set aside time from the biology curriculum to teach religious myths like creationism or intelligent design, or Native American myths or Hindu stories or even the doctrines of the Flying Spaghetti monster, the time for all of this would have to be deducted from biology instruction time. Will this leave sufficient time for teachers to get through the biology subject matter on which students will actually be tested if they want to apply to universities?

StAnastasia
 
Dale_M said:
News Update
Indiana Senate broadens creationism teaching proposal
courier-journal.com/article/20120131/NEWS02/301310054/bill-on-creationism-amended?odyssey=nav|head
The bill still needs to be approved by the full Indiana Senate, before being sent to the Indiana House for consideration.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would rather see a curriculum in which objections to naturalism are presented. Scientists such as Steven C. Meyer and Michael Behe should be able to have their views discussed in the classroom. This would allow the students to *think for themselves*. A novel concept to the entrenched establishment , I know. ;) Rob
 
StAnastasia said:
Dale, one difficulty is that the academic year has a set length, around 180 days. If a district were to set aside time from the biology curriculum to teach religious myths like creationism or intelligent design, or Native American myths or Hindu stories or even the doctrines of the Flying Spaghetti monster, the time for all of this would have to be deducted from biology instruction time. Will this leave sufficient time for teachers to get through the biology subject matter on which students will actually be tested if they want to apply to universities?

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Look, I too think that you evolution acolytes have bought a *myth* more preposterous than the tooth fairy. If you are going to use incendiary put-downs, I hope that you don't whine when they are used *against* you as well. In almost every pro-Darwinist post, there is condescension, which I find to be the refuge of the insecure. I just want both sides generally and fairly presented in schools, and I don't think that anyone should be frightened by the competition of ideas. You can even say that many scientists don't regard ID as scientific, but believe me, ID scientists see seriously flawed thinking in your POV as well. Cordially, Bob :D
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Click to expand...
Hardly Rich. Guys like Meyer and Behe are brilliant scientists. They simply don't buy the conventional "wisdom" of the naturalists, and they are perfectly willing to discuss their logic, but most evos decline for obvious (to me) reasons. The mantra of the left, every time they hold controversial views which make little sense, is that "the debate is over". Well, where can I find this imaginary debate? I see yellow smoke billowing from the prehistoric spines in the primordial stew. ;) Rob
 
RACJ said:
Hardly Rich. Guys like Meyer and Behe are brilliant scientists. They simply don’t buy the conventional “wisdom” of the naturalists, and they are perfectly willing to discuss their logic, but most evos decline for obvious (to me) reasons. The mantra of the left, every time they hold controversial views which make little sense, is that “the debate is over”. Well, where can I find this imaginary debate? I see yellow smoke billowing from the prehistoric spines in the primordial stew. 😉 Rob
Click to expand...
Steven Meyer is a philosopher, and Michale Behe is a biochemist whose own department has dismissed him as a crackpot.
 
Genetic modification through descent is hardly a controversial topic in science. We can see selective breeding, both natural and artificial, through empirical study. That is all that should be taught in public schools, IMO. Creationism, and Intelligent Design, definitely have no place as scientific studies since they aren’t subject to the scientific method.

Intelligent design is a philosophical interpretation based on scientific information, but it’s not science. Creationism can’t even claim that much as it’s simply a religious viewpoint. Neither should be taught in science classes, though perhaps intelligent design might have a place in a philosophy class, should such a thing be offered. I still thing Intelligent Design is a poor philosophy, and shouldn’t be supported by Catholics because it narrows the scope of how we view God’s causality, but it could still be presented in the proper context in school.

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top