B
Bradskii
Guest
That’s quite a possibility if you get caught breaking the law. One based on the constitution.Bradskii:
Wow! … or you lose your job…
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
Q. Sir, is evolution random and undirected?
A. I don’t think that is an appropriate scientific question. First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most definitely a non-random force, and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science. So my answer for different reasons to both parts of your question is no. Or excuse me, perhaps more aptly put, science, science cannot answer the second part of the question. I think that’s a more accurate way to put it.
(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)
B
Bradskii
Guest
And further:
Q. My question is why is it in this edition?
A. I’m trying to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write separately and individually, and this was a statement as I was going through Joe’s chapters, and I feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that’s why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions. So what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake.
(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)
Q. My question is why is it in this edition?
A. I’m trying to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write separately and individually, and this was a statement as I was going through Joe’s chapters, and I feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that’s why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions. So what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake.
(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)
M
Metis1
Guest
That’s an either/or dichotomy that is unnecessary to believe in. It is at the least hypothetically possible that God made the foundation of creation at least partially incomplete whereas the Earth becomes ours to help build up so that it’s ours, not just God’s.
As for me, I simply cannot accept the concept that God planned every little detail, including our behavior. That would put God into planning for us to sin and then punishing us when we sin, which doesn’t make much sense to me.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think that you’ll find that Ed discounted Miller because Miller holds views that are not compatible with Ed’s fundamentalist religious beliefs. He was playing the man not the ball. He should have looked at what Miller has written and tried to refute that.Atreju:
Will you give the same support to a nationally renowned biologist who now supports ID as the better explanation?
If you have a nationally renowned biologist who now supports ID, then it will be his or her ideas that will be challenged.
I’m sure that you agree with that.
B
buffalo
Guest
You know me. Argue the issues not the person. Too many times we see the attack on anyone affiliated with ID as not being credible, etc. Some have even been fired for supporting ID.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Let’s not muddy the waters here. If the theory of a flat earth has been scientifically demolished, then I’m sure that you’d agree that anyone speaking on behalf of the Flat Earth Society is lacking credibility from the outset.Bradskii:
You know me. Argue the issues not the person. Too many times we see the attack on anyone affiliated with ID as not being credible, etc. Some have even been fired for supporting ID.
Likewise, as ID has been demolished as a scientific proposal, then anyone espousing ID is likewise lacking credibility.
B
buffalo
Guest
Except is has not…
E
edwest
Guest
To buffalo,
"For example, he argues that systems biology assumes “teleology,” which is to say “top-down” rather than “bottom up” design. As he puts it, systems biology assumes that biological systems were built “starting with a goal, and then working backwards to see what is needed and used to accomplish that goal.” That’s a concise description of how designers operate. He provides a lengthy citation from a 2004 paper by the respected cell biologist Arthur Lander at the University of California, Irvine, writing in PLoS Biology under the title, “A Calculus of Purpose.” You can find the entire passage in the original paper, including the following striking comment:
Lander identifies various commonly re-used components in biology — networks that function as a “‘switch,’ ‘filter,’ ‘oscillator,’ ‘dynamic range adjuster,’ ‘producer of stripes,’ etc.” He notes that by recognizing the effects of these common elements, biologists are able to more quickly determine the function or purpose of a system.
I don’t see any evidence that Lander himself is a proponent of intelligent design. But he nonetheless concludes that recognizing the “teleological side of molecular biology” is vital for doing research:
"For example, he argues that systems biology assumes “teleology,” which is to say “top-down” rather than “bottom up” design. As he puts it, systems biology assumes that biological systems were built “starting with a goal, and then working backwards to see what is needed and used to accomplish that goal.” That’s a concise description of how designers operate. He provides a lengthy citation from a 2004 paper by the respected cell biologist Arthur Lander at the University of California, Irvine, writing in PLoS Biology under the title, “A Calculus of Purpose.” You can find the entire passage in the original paper, including the following striking comment:
(Arthur D. Lander, “A Calculus of Purpose,” PLoS Biology , Vol. 2(6): 0712-0714 (June, 2004).)
Lander identifies various commonly re-used components in biology — networks that function as a “‘switch,’ ‘filter,’ ‘oscillator,’ ‘dynamic range adjuster,’ ‘producer of stripes,’ etc.” He notes that by recognizing the effects of these common elements, biologists are able to more quickly determine the function or purpose of a system.
I don’t see any evidence that Lander himself is a proponent of intelligent design. But he nonetheless concludes that recognizing the “teleological side of molecular biology” is vital for doing research:
Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that “just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little ‘junk.’”
E
edwest
Guest
He explains, “Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible ,” and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.
Systems biology also takes for granted that organisms are “robust,” by which Snoke means, “not only in the ability of a single organism to operate in a changing environment” but also “the ability of a type of organism to endure in multiple forms and different ecosystems.” He finds that biological systems are often “overdesigned,” meaning they are “designed to continue to operate under conditions far from the expected normal operating conditions.” Strikingly, Snoke observes that, “Typically the subsystems that are overdesigned are those that are essential for the operation of the whole system,” and “This occurs at all levels in biological systems.”
Finally, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes organismal features can be “reverse engineered,” and that this is “evidenced by the frequent explicit use of this term” in the literature. He notes that this is helping us to improve human technology — as we understand how biological systems work, we can better build our own systems. Snoke calls such thinking “design language,” and he notes that biologists who use the systems biology approach use this kind of thinking to explain what they see. One author he cites even asks, “Can we employ understanding from specific cases to decipher ‘design principles’ applicable to all biological systems?” Snoke observes that many mainstream biologists use precise such terminology."
Systems biology also takes for granted that organisms are “robust,” by which Snoke means, “not only in the ability of a single organism to operate in a changing environment” but also “the ability of a type of organism to endure in multiple forms and different ecosystems.” He finds that biological systems are often “overdesigned,” meaning they are “designed to continue to operate under conditions far from the expected normal operating conditions.” Strikingly, Snoke observes that, “Typically the subsystems that are overdesigned are those that are essential for the operation of the whole system,” and “This occurs at all levels in biological systems.”
Finally, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes organismal features can be “reverse engineered,” and that this is “evidenced by the frequent explicit use of this term” in the literature. He notes that this is helping us to improve human technology — as we understand how biological systems work, we can better build our own systems. Snoke calls such thinking “design language,” and he notes that biologists who use the systems biology approach use this kind of thinking to explain what they see. One author he cites even asks, “Can we employ understanding from specific cases to decipher ‘design principles’ applicable to all biological systems?” Snoke observes that many mainstream biologists use precise such terminology."
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
It’s a religious proposal. Remember telling us that?Bradskii:
Except is has not…
B
buffalo
Guest
There is ID, the philosophy
and
ID, the science
Remember me telling you that? (over and over)
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yeah. You keep confirming that they are one and the same people. The DI is using junk science to promote a religious belief. You cannot separate the two. Hence Dover.Bradskii:
There is ID, the philosophy
and
ID, the science
Remember me telling you that? (over and over)
B
buffalo
Guest
As if all scientists are pure of any a priori bias. Curious how atheist evo biologists are so very quick to attack the ID folks.
Modern science was started by religious. The Catholic Church was the leading patron. It was OK for a very long time.
We already argued the points, remember?
R
Rubee
Guest
That’s not hypothetical, given we believe it already in some degree. It still doesn’t make the world random, given every possibility must first be granted by God. It’s not like we can do whatever the hell we want. I can’t for example, turn the sun blood red.
We can only choose between options before us, which are limited in a very deliberate way by the design of our universe and the possibilities inherent in that design. So there’s still no room for claiming that things happen randomly in a true sense. It’s like claiming a video game is random when each option available at every stage is part of the game from the beginning. The player doesn’t conjure it. He only chooses between things that exist. The effects that can come from each choice are only those allowed to happen by whoever designed the game.
Our reality cannot do things God has not allowed it to do, no matter what freedom he allows us within that reality. So however you slice it, true randomness is inconsistent with creation. There are no “possible” options except those deliberately allowed by God. It is not possible to have being in any degree whatsoever without God’s directly granting it. There’s only one creator, it can be no other way.
R
Rubee
Guest
In addition, we cannot believe that Adam or any of us were accidental. And if you grant that, then the whole “random evolution” thing goes out the window. You must at least grant that when God made the universe, he made it so that Adam would exist, and all of his progeny after him. And if you do, then whichever way he did it, God indeed made it so that Adam would be the result no matter what. That’s not “optional”. That’s a result directly willed and ensured by God.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Bias is filtered out by peer review. And those who promote ID are actively promoting creationism. That’s not bias. That a raison d’etre.Bradskii:
As if all scientists are pure of any a priori bias. Curious how atheist evo biologists are so very quick to attack the ID folks.
R
rossum
Guest
And your evidence is? I am sure you realize that unsupported personal opinion is not worth a great deal in science.
I note you do not mention Francis Collins, another Christian biologist.
R
rossum
Guest
Sounds like a Bible College firing anyone who does not conform to the mandated Bible interpretation.
E
edwest
Guest
I do not bow before the false idol, science. Only the Church has the full, complete answer.
- Status