Teaching evolution at a catholic school

[o_mlly]

It’s not asserted. It’s accepted as a given.

Why the passive voice? Hiding something again? Who accepts that “the very definition of” ID depends on the age of the earth? It appears the one you are attempting to hide is, well, just you, Fred. The ACLU, no friend to ID, contradicts you.

Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" | American Civil Liberties Union

Unlike traditional forms of creationism, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does it take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base of support from creationists with differing views.

Trust you bought the license for unlimited use of the copyrighted “Shot in the Foot” cartoon. Looks like you should post it again on yourself.
https://www.cartoonstock.com/
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You don’t. So you have to refute what they do because you don’t accept what they do. You directly oppose what they propose.

Am I beginning to understand you accept ID, the science so long as it occurred over a long time?

I don’t accept ID. But the people that you tell us are those we should trust to issue educational material as regards ID accept that it has occured over millions of years.

You deny the very evidence they offer. You tell us to accept what they say when you don’t accept it yourself.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s not asserted. It’s accepted as a given.

Why the passive voice?

I didn’t link to the ID website that said they were investigating evolutionary history going back millions of years. Buff did. Should we listen to these people?

Let us know if these people should be trusted.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t accept ID. But the people that you tell us are those we should trust to issue educational material as regards ID accept that it has occured over millions of years.

You deny the very evidence they offer. You tell us to accept what they say when you don’t accept it yourself.

Intelligently designed complexity stands apart from any timeline. To accept ID, the science, one can have alternative views on age or take no position at all…

Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t link to the ID website that said they were investigating evolutionary history going back millions of years. Buff did. Should we listen to these people?

Let us know if these people should be trusted.

They were addressing the sudden rise in complexity during the period we call the Cambrian. Do you accept the Cambrian explosion as fact? Is your acceptance based on when it is claimed to have happened?

 

[o_mlly]

I didn’t link to the ID website that said they were investigating evolutionary history going back millions of years. Buff did. Should we listen to these people?

Let us know if these people should be trusted.

Perhaps a cartoon on “How to extract one’s foot from mouth” would be more appropriate.

 

[rossum]

Design is readily apparent to humans.

And humans come to subjective, not objective, conclusion. Human senses can be fooled, as with a mirage. You do not have a validated scientific test for design.

“A mathematical measure of functional information, in units of Fits, of the functional sequence complexity…"

How is this relevant? Where is the evidence to show that ‘Fits’ cannot arise naturally? Ekland (1995) shows that random sequences provide a proportion of functional functional sequences. The evidence of back-mutations shows that it is possible for a non-functional sequence (0 Fits) can be rendered functional by a natural process. I am doubtful that these Fits provide the test that you are looking for.

 

[buffalo]

And humans come to subjective, not objective, conclusion.

So the computer you are using is due to ns and rm? Arose by chance. My your god of BUC is indeed powerful and much faith placed in it.

There is no evidence of FSCI just popping into existence.

 

[o_mlly]

And humans come to subjective, not objective, conclusion. Human senses can be fooled, as with a mirage. You do not have a validated scientific test for design.

You might want to think through that comment again. Unless scientific test outcomes are infused knowledge and not merely observed, subjectivity remains. Often, testers only see what they were looking for and dismiss what they did not want to see … unconsciously, of course.

 

[rossum]

There is no evidence of FSCI just popping into existence.

False. Your sources are either lying to you or ignorant. The paper I referenced, Ekland (1995) shows just that. Similarly back mutations can create FSCI where there was none before.

You need to find better sources.

 

[rossum]

Often, testers only see what they were looking for and dismiss what they did not want to see … unconsciously, of course.

Which is why tests are repeated many times by different scientists to try to reduce such bias to a minimum.

As and when the ID side produces its test results other scientists will repeat those tests with variations and we will approach an unbiased test.

When Professor Behe proposed Irreducible Complexity as a hypothesis, it was examined by other scientists: Lenski (2003) and Thornhill & Ussery (2000) for example. Part of Behe’s work was found to be correct and has been incorporated into the modern theory. The other part was found incorrect and rejected. To his credit, Behe accepted the correction to his work and later published some research on his amended hypothesis: Behe & Snoke (2004).

That is how science works, hypotheses are proposed, tested and the parts that survive testing incorporated into current science.

 

[buffalo]

False.

What? Objects jut suddenly pop into existence. My kitchen table for instance?

 

[o_mlly]

That is how science works, hypotheses are proposed, tested and the parts that survive testing incorporated into current science.

Yes, science has a future.

See Behe (2010) “Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and ‘the first rule of adaptive evolution’”.

Hottes, et. al. (2013) “Bacterial adaptation through loss of function”.

Paz-y-Mino, et. al. (2011) “The Jackprot Simulation Couples Mutation Rate with Natural Selection to Illustrate How Protein Evolution Is Not Random”.

As I wrote, we often see only what we are looking for and dismiss all else.

 

[rossum]

What? Objects jut suddenly pop into existence. My kitchen table for instance?

Your claim that FSCI cannot “pop into existence” is false, and I gave the reference showing it was false.

If you think that your claim applies to your kitchen table then you will need to show us the calculation of the FSCI in your kitchen table.

I would also be interested to see your calculation on the FSCI inherent in an omniscient encyclopedia, contaning all knowledge.

 

[rossum]

Yes, science has a future.

See Behe (2010) “Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and ‘the first rule of adaptive evolution’”.

Hottes, et. al. (2013) “Bacterial adaptation through loss of function”.

Yes, evolution can reduce information as well as increase it. Have a look at tapeworms or male Angler fish for good examples. If a system is no longer required in your environment then it is beneficial not to expend energy building that system. Tapeworms live in animals’ digestive systems, so they have no digestive system of their own; they absorb food that their host has already digested.

Paz-y-Mino, et. al. (2011) “The Jackprot Simulation Couples Mutation Rate with Natural Selection to Illustrate How Protein Evolution Is Not Random”.

Did you bother to read that paper before you mentioned it?

Views which attribute randomness to molecular change, deleterious nature to single-gene mutations, insufficient geological time, or population size for molecular improvements to occur, or invoke “design creationism” to account for complexity in molecular structures and biological processes, are unfounded. (emphases added)

Thank you for providing yet more evidence of an old earth and the error of ID. A non-random process does not have to be intelligently caused. Water flows downhill and water is not intelligent.

As I wrote, we often see only what we are looking for and dismiss all else.

Indeed. The ID side can provide many relevant examples; they want to see design, so they see design. Hence the need for an objective test to indicate the presence of design. “It sure looks designed to me” is insufficient for exactly the reason you point out.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I didn’t link to the ID website that said they were investigating evolutionary history going back millions of years. Buff did. Should we listen to these people?

Let us know if these people should be trusted.

They were addressing the sudden rise in complexity during the period we call the Cambrian. Do you accept the Cambrian explosion as fact?

‘We call’? This is something that happened a half a billion years ago. They are investigating something that you don’t believe could possibly have happened. You are telling us to listen to people who would treat your views as being nonsensical.

I keep telling you but you won’t listen. Link to anything other than fundamentalist sites and there will be information therein which directly contradicts what you believe. Yet another case in point in rossum’s post directly above this one.

Do you know the only site in the whole of the internet that accurately reflects what you believe? Yours. I’d stick with that one if I were you. Less chance of further embarrassment.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

That is how science works, hypotheses are proposed, tested and the parts that survive testing incorporated into current science.

Yes, science has a future.

See Behe (2010) “Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and ‘the first rule of adaptive evolution’”.

You want us to listen to Behe as well?

In Darwin’s Black Box , Behe confessed that he had “no reason to doubt that the universe is billions of years old,” and that he had “no particular reason to doubt” common descent…

Michael Behe: “No Friend of Young-Earth Creationists” - Apologetics Press

You don’t believe any of that. Why do you link to people who have views that are total at odds with yours?

 

[o_mlly]

Views which attribute randomness to molecular change, deleterious nature to single-gene mutations, insufficient geological time, or population size for molecular improvements to occur, or invoke “design creationism” to account for complexity in molecular structures and biological processes, are unfounded. (emphases added)

Whatever is “design creationism”? Guillermo does not understand ID theory. His work that I cited supports the fact that scientists are not as objective as you’d like to think. Guillermo criticizes what he does not understand.

And it looks like you do as well. Or, perhaps you missed my previous post (see below),

The age of the earth is not asserted in “the very definition of [ID]”. To claim so is a gross error or a purposeful deflection.

Unlike traditional forms of creationism, ID does not rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does it take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth.

You want us to listen to Behe as well?

In Darwin’s Black Box , Behe confessed that he had “no reason to doubt that the universe is billions of years old,” and that he had “no particular reason to doubt” common descent…

Michael Behe: “No Friend of Young-Earth Creationists”

You don’t believe any of that.

Do you never tire of straw manning? While I would give rossum the benefit of the doubt, your frequent and abusive use of this fallacy puts you in a category of your own.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You want us to listen to Behe as well?

In Darwin’s Black Box , Behe confessed that he had “no reason to doubt that the universe is billions of years old,” and that he had “no particular reason to doubt” common descent…

Michael Behe: “No Friend of Young-Earth Creationists”

You don’t believe any of that.

Do you never tire of straw manning? While I would give rossum the benefit of the doubt, your frequent and abusive use of this fallacy puts you in a category of your own.

Yet you don’t believe in common descent or a planet that is billions of years old. Why link to someone who thinks your beliefs are nonsensical? He doesn’t support your position. He considers them to be those of a fundamentalist.

 

[o_mlly]

Yet you don’t believe …

Fred, let me give you some tips to help you stop straw manning people.

1. Read what you intend to post before posting.
2. If your first few words are, “What you are really saying …” or “You don’t believe …” or similar phrases (the key giveaway is your use of the word “you”) then stop yourself right there.
3. Do the poster you are referencing the common courtesy of citing the actual words he/she used.
4. Once you’ve properly cited the post in question you will very likely (given the straw men you’ve generated over the years in these forums) cancel what you intended to post thereby reducing your post count considerably.