Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Qualified by the usual caveat, of course. He won’t say which theory he favors (beyond acknowledging some unknown role of the creator), but clearly he’s sufficiently sold on ID that he thinks it merits being laid in front of kids as an alternative to evolution. Which is a dodge, really, in the same way that the Truthers’ irritating “just asking questions” defense is a dodge: It uses the spirit of free inquiry as a way to avoid the threshold question of how credible any theory has to be to end up in the curriculum. Doubtless there are far left parents (and far right, per the Paulnuts) who wouldn’t mind seeing competing theories of 9/11 taught in history class so that kids can “make up their own minds,” but that ain’t likely to happen. Or actually, given the orientation of teachers’ unions, maybe it is. Stay tuned!
The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next »
Hey now, don’t dis the Spagheti Monster….
And YES, if there is a competing theory that said it was all in the Pasta Sauce, sure, give the premise, and then the facts that support it… its called the scientific method…
You know… competing theories? Without competing theories there is NO SCIENCE… there would be no progress… don’t teach any of this as FACT, but as Theories… if its silly it will get debunked… but let the debate happen.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Middle ground is for politics not for reality.
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I’m wondering why I’m here. With this consciousness, with this ability to view this computer screen and type without looking at my fingers. Can’t be random chance. I look at the Hoya Bella flowers on my desk and see perfect and complex pentagonal symmetry. Must be random mutations at work?
Sorry, I think NOT.
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Indeed you don’t.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Well, if we know all of that as fact then it seems we should know how to make a tomato at least turn into a carrot. But of course science is unable to do that. So until demonstrated its just so many words.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 4:02 PM
And have you ever found any religious person who can credibly tell you what was before the Big God.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM
and it fails every test.
link
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM
That’s a fair comment. I use “we know” as a shorthand for a concept that takes a lot of room to type out. To be fair, science never gives us answers that we can know in the strictest sense. But there are scientific models to explain the universe that are supported by such an overwhelming array of data, none of which is inconsistent with the model, that the model is taken as “fact,” which good scientists know can always be overturned by subsequent data. We “know” that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because of gravity. Now, our exact understanding of the details of gravity theory may evolve over time, but that “knowledge” is pretty fundamental (physicists excuse me if I made a big error there).
So, what is the data for evolution? Wait one minute and I will post some.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM
with you I don’t have to do anything.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Correct, but this is a POLITICAL question… ie whether to teach competing theories on how we came to be here.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
See? Knew this would happen. No. Carrots and tomatoes had a common ancestor, but it was a very long time and many, many generations ago. Evolution is not about tomatoes turning into carrots or monkeys turning into men.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Clark,
You are someone who indoctrinates children with the unscientific evolution theory. It’s sad to think of how many people you have brainwashed into believing a lie. How many people have you led towards Hell by your lack of ability to question your unscientific/religious dogma of evolutionism?
You should repent and work towards undoing the damage you have done.
There will be a harsh judgment for people in your position(people that lie about the Truth of God and lead children to reject Him).
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What about Chimpy Bush?
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
wishful thinking…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Could you cite an example of this, please?
Again, the point behind ID is not to show that unguided DWM is completely impossible, or that all phenomena is best explained by ID, but that intelligent design is the best explanation for some observed phenomena.
Show that there exist no irreducible complexity and no specified complexity in the known biological record. Some Darwinists claim to have done so, thus proving that ID is falsifiable.
Essentially, Darwinism is too dogmatic. It states categorically that all natural biological phenomena without exception arose through unguided DWM from a single organism or small set of them. ID’s counter argument is that there exists too much specified and/or irreducible complexity distributed throughout Darwin’s “tree of life” for this to be the case. At some point or points, the fingerprint of design exists within the morphological and molecular structure of biological phenomena.
Be that by the hand of space aliens or the Almighty, ID doesn’t care. The design exists, and the existence of purposeful design carries with it many different and useful implications both from a scientific and an engineering standpoint. What is just a curious “illusion of design” to (and is oftentimes ignored by) a Darwinist is a big red sign stating “LOOK AT ME, I’M IMPORTANT” to an ID researcher.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
That has got to be the most bizarre statement I have ever heard.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Clown.
Of.
The.
Ass.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I hope Hell serves beer. I love beer.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
What the fuck is going on?
I am sick and tired of mixing religion with everything that is supposed to be public.
Religious beliefs are supposed to be a private matter between the Human Being and His Creator.
I don’t want to see religious beliefs being forced on kids in public schools.
I don’t want to see religion being talked about in courts, at work or in politics.
When will this country grow up?
When will the government stop interfering with people’s private lives and beliefs?
I am a Catholic and I believe in everything that is Catholic. I maybe be more Catholic than the Pope, but I don’t go around publicizing my faith.
And I don’t care what other people believe.
All I want is to live my life as a good Christian and be an example to others with deeds and words without preaching.
All I want is to be treated the same.
Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Yes, they will. I myself (and others here) have stated in this very thread that evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God, and that the implications of ID can be fully appreciated through one’s own faith… it simply has no place in a science classroom.
The IDers, however, will not recognize middle ground. They know full well that ID is simply an attempt to squeeze religion into a science class, and pretend that faith has no place, that it must be all out inclusion of ID into science curricula.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
All of you supporting teaching “Intelligent Design” to our children are looking at this issue through religious glasses. Education should be about evidence and facts. Not religious beliefs.
SoulGlo on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
That paper is not inconsistent at all with evolution. Did you read it? It describes combining marginally deleterious mutations together – usually the combination is highly deleterious. It also describes combining marginally beneficial mutations together – often the combination is deleterious. How does this disprove evolution?
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I
maybemay be more Catholic than the Pope.Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I haven’t checked “up-thread” for your other posts, but that was either very frightening, or some brilliant parody. (I suspect the latter, but who knows…)
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
You take believing six impossible things before breakfast to a whole new level.
Cripes.. can’t you get a brain and a clue?
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
but evolution can emphatically rule out a creator, and its ’science’
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Well then make it turn into something else…. anything. Science can’t do that either. They have been trying to make fruit flies turn into anything else for about 60 years now. No luck whatsoever.
They get dead fruit flies, and ones with no eyes and with no wings and all other sorts of harmful mutations, but always a fruit fly. Why do you think that is?
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 4:12 PM
What does that mean? Please explain a specific experiment that could be performed. Then explain the result of that experiment that would disprove ID.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:13 PM
No it can’t. That’s why it’s science.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I agree. So why do we keep teaching them about scientific “Theories” that haven’t been proven? It’s not a fact until proven right? Could we teach them logic and critical thinking so that maybe one day, it will be fact? And IF the fact turns out to be that all we know and see is Intelligently Designed (which is a fact), then will that make you a flat earther?
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Anyhow, thanks for the good discussion here, and a hat-tip to the more calm Darwinists here. Hate to, but it’s time for me to peace out. Cheers guys.
Remember, 1000 comments or bust, people. We have a reputation to uphold.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM
No, it can’t, nor does it seek to, except in your feverish mind.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:16 PM
did you miss this?
15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic.
even mutations that were benficial individually became harmful when paired with another benficial mutation…so where are teh benficial synergistic mutations that evolution needs to create these new forms and functions?
did you read it?? apparently not.
‘‘Although we can continue to marvel at the adaptability of RNA viruses . . . rather than thinking about what RNA viruses can do in their evolution, we should concentrate on their limitations. RNA viruses might be more at the mercy of their mutation rates than we think.’’ Theexistence of decompensatory epistasis among beneficial mutations
might constrain adaptability of RNA viruses.
and this study was the fist of its kind:
Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored.
why is that?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
St. Augustine-
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
- The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, AD 408
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
In reality, you are attempting to shoehorn your anti-creation dogma onto my kids. Evolution is a THEORY yet your side is demanding it be accepted as incontrovertible fact despite huge gaps in the logic involved. I still don’t see why you people are so scared of debate on this issue if you are so sure that your side has all the answers and those with a different view are nothing more than wide-eyed religious zealots.
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Such as the theory of gravity? The germ theory of disease? The theory of continental drift? The theory of a heliocentric solar system?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
you obviously only know enough about your beloved ‘theory’ to parrot talking points.
“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
lets see if you have the integrity to admit you were wrong…(not a chance, you’re a darwiniac)
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:19 PM
The hysteria from the “evolutionists” has really taken on a new low. Now anybody who doesn’t agree is being called names that really equate to bashing people who ascribe to faith in a higher being. Think of the Inquisition in reverse where the adherents to the faith of man’s theories attack any mention of God. Pretty pitiful that you are so unsure of your views that you need to silence the teaching of anything that upsets your comfortable little world view. Your kids (and mine) are the more stupid because of your bias and unfounded fears.
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Whats with all the f-bombs being dropped around here? I’m not a prude, but if you find yourself having to actually type the word, you’re probably not thinking too hard.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
What are the origins of the theory of evolution?
It is a well documented fact that Charles Darwin’s grandfather ERASMUS DARWIN was the inventor of the theory of evolution.
Erasmus Darwin was a top FREEMASON leader and a member of the Jacobin masons(the ones who formed the french revolution)..
Erasmus Darwin was also a member of the bavarian ILLUMINATI.
If you know anything about the illuminati and freemasonry..you would know that they worship the sumerian “god” BAAL!
Baal is mentioned many times in the Bible. You might also know him as Baal-zebub prince of the fallen angels.
They literally worship Baal in rituals and deed
Two of the documented goals of the illuminati are the destruction of Christianity, and a one world government.
The idea that man evolved from fish and was created through this process by the fallen angels (or the aliens)..is lifted directly from Sumerian theology! That is what Baal told them happened and this is what they brainwash kids with today.
Here is a clip of atheist spokesman Richard Dawkins telling us that we were created by aliens.
2 minutes 20 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o7OSNDqY9g
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
“And have you ever found any religious person who can credibly tell you what was before the Big God.” Max Brantley 4
Nothing.
Al-Ozarka on June 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Um, I am not by any stretch of the Imagination a Christian.
But I have no problem with them bringing up this competing THEORY and laying it on the table with what evidence it has.
Heck, you can even think of it as an excercise in critical thinking (which we really don’t teach at all)…
IF, as some here say, there is NO evidence beyond FAITH, then that will come out when you give the evidence.
People only suppress SPEECH and IDEAS when they are afraid of them.
Heck, teach a bunch of creation myths… I don’t care… its an interesting excercise in how SCIENCE advances.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
You’re right–I’m wrong and I humbly beseech your forgiveness for my transgression. I am undone by quotes.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Not the grade A prime red meat we’ve been looking for. Mystery meat at best.
I would prefer a fight to put the pledge back in the classroom first. IN ENGLISH! Religion can be taught in sunday school and church. Properly teaching American history and civics will naturally lure people to learn more about their own faith on their own time. Public schools have enough problems teaching the 3 R’s.
myamphibian on June 16, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Provide me with the scientific evidence that I should be teaching, and maybe you can save my soul. Good scientists are also open to new data. Nothing is ever beyond re-evaluation. That’s why global warming adherents for whom the case is closed are not scientists.
It’s easy to disprove evolution. Find organisms that are closely related (e.g dogs and wolves; mammals with mammals; eukaryotes with eukaryotes)and show that they don’t share huge commonalities in terms of DNA sequence, protein sequence, enzyme activities, subcellular structure, or appearence in the fossil record. For bonus points, find multiple such pairs, and observe that the extent of their similarities are not in direct proportion to their relationships (e.g., dogs and wolves are more similar than two random mammals, which are more similar than two random eukaryotes).
Let’s talk data if you want to talk about science.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:24 PM
sublty will get you no where on these threads. :)
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I think that part of the problem here is that there is massive misunderstanding of what science actually is.
The only proof that credibly exists in the scientific world is the formal proof of mathematics. Even that doesn’t guarantee that the equation represents truth, only that it is mathematically correct.
Theories abound in the world of science, but they are only vehicles for conveying speculative understandings of reality. What science really is, is an imaginary dimension of models. When we engage in scientific pursuits, we are engaged in an attempt to formulate a model (typically mathematical) of some aspect of our perception of reality.
Twiddling our thumbs and marveling at the wondrous complexity of things does not produce any scientifically actionable models. Maybe there’s a creator/designer, I don’t know. What I do know is that such speculation won’t solve our quest for new energy sources, or put food on the table, or help children in 3rd world countries survive infancy. Such speculation is of zero value in the world of science.
ID is not science. It is a transparent ad ignorantum. Meta-religion, if you will.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
actually he pliagarized it from wallace.
but anything goes in evolution….
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
You forgot to mention the Reverse Vampires and the Trilateral Commission’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Perverting the Minds of Children With Evolution.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Sick puppy…sad sick puppy.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM
…and you forgot to mention the fiat money.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Please try to avoid fallacious arguments. Would you like me to find a couple of people saying un-nice things about creationists and asserting that they are therefore true (simply because someone made the argument)?
Evolution quite obviously–to anyone who can think even a little bit–does not rule out (or otherwise even address) the existence or non-existence of God.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM
but evolution is useless in science. it provides no predictions. really, what is it useful for?
even if you think bacterial anti-biotics resistance is ‘evolution’ how does that help us build the next anti-biotic?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM
obviously it does. the evolutionists admit it, as I have demonstrated.
the people I quoted are not joe schmoe from nowhere, they are prominent evolutionists. and like it or not, what they say matters.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM
why do you think these similarities show evolution? they can just as easily show design.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Someone can claim evolution disproves a creator for the universe, but that doesn’t make it so. Science can only provide insight into things that can be tested by evidence.
Just like someone can claim the science of global warming is “closed”. Doesn’t make it true, and indeed is 100% incorrect.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I had to look that up.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Really? Since when is ‘predictive power’ a required function of science? Sometimes, good scientific models serve to illuminate. Evolution is a good example of this. No overarching formal theories exist (that I know of), but the principles illuminated by the theory have led us to investigate deeper into genetics and have given rise to [ironically] miraculous advances in pharmaceutical and bio-engineering science.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM
so you say. but the people I quoted are prominent evolutionists, they define evolution, not you.
from the man who came up with the synthesis:
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the wonderful design so admired by natural theologians could
be explained by natural selection…(Mayr, E. (2000). Darwin’s influence on modern thought. Scientific American, 283, 70-83, 81.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM
actually it has been an impediment to research. the whole notion of ‘junk dna’ is a darwinian concept, which discourages research.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Aren’t you at all concerned that if You spend to much time here on this blog You will be late for Your consultation appointment with God to give Him some more advice?
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I know of no such influence. Our progress over the last 20 years has been staggering.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Now you’re talking. Yes good science is something demonstrate and replicate. Christians are very pro science.
True science confirms the Bible.
You’re trying to convince me that the fact that a dog came from a wolf proves evolution?
It’s obvious that dogs came form wolves..even the most pathetic example of dogs(chihuahua’s)came form wolves..but the fact is they are still canines.
You will never see a dog become a cat.
What you are trying to prove is natural selection(micro evolution).
Natural selection was never an argument against Creation pre Darwin.
Neither does natural selection in any way prove macro evolution.
Macro evolution is 100% impossible and unproven.
A dog will always produce a dog. A cat will always produce a cat.
Just like the Bible says..each thing reproduces after their own kind.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:39 PM
How horrible for you and your children that they’ll be taught the current best naturalistic explanation of biogenesis, as opposed to Christian creation myth in pseudoscientific drag.
Perhaps they’ll grow up to be less ignorant than you.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Indeed. Homie Obama/Squire Obama is not the only one with a split personality. It’s a mad house!
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 4:40 PM
and we owe none of it to evolution.
Even Coyne admits this:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
link
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:40 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM
So a quote from a “prominent intelligent design proponent” asserting that ID is a mechanism for getting God into the classroom–a redressing of creationism–should suffice to end this discussion and keep it out of science classes?
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
first whats wrong with God in the classroom? we managed to do quite well for 150 years or so with God in the classroom, and we have done worse, in almost every way, without God in the classroom.
but go ahead, post your quote.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Just to pointlessly add something that’s probably been said already:
ID proponents do harm both to science and Christianity.
With regards to science, they attempt to discredit the scientific method and scientific principles with conspiracy theories and the type of nitpicking that goes with that kind of mindset. Science is responsible for understanding the world around us.
With regards to Christianity, they try to explain the unknowable, supernatural actions of an omnipotent God with psuedo-science. If you believe that God created the universe in 7 days, made Adam from dirt, parted the Red Sea, etc, etc, etc- you by definition believe in the supernatural, as these are not natural processes.
To attempt to (badly) use science- which deals in evidence, physical laws and evidence- to explain the supernatural acts of God is to diminish his role. It is also arrogant to suggest that man can understand the ways of God.
The solution is very easy- acknoledge that even if the evidence points to Earth being some 4-5 billion years old, that was the way God chose to create it. If he wanted to provide undeniable evidence that he created the heavens and Earth, he easily could’ve done so. Christianity is based on faith, not science. To maintain faith even without direct physical evidence is the true test of that faith.
Hollowpoint on June 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
If you believe in evolution..you should truly embrace it’s origins.
Come on out and proclaim your belief that we were created by aliens.
To be consistent, you should also practice Baal worship and sacrifice humans to him.
You certainly wouldn’t want to be one of the deceived people that are brainwashed by your brothers in arms against God.
Get to know it’s real origins and embrace them.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
For many reasons:
1. The similarities extend to things that have no function (and are indeed often deleterious) like introns, transposons, retroviruses, retrotransposnsons, etc.
2. We can observe these type of developments in the lab. Stick one yeast cell into a chamber and let the yeast grow for many generations with limited sugar provided. You will get out at least 4 strains of yeast, each of which is specialized and differs from the original yeast and each other by mutations. One will be absolutely the best at using the sugar (glucose), at the expense of being able to use one of the breakdown products (acetate). A second will be the best at using the acetate the first strain is leaking out, at the expense of the next breakdown product (and so on for the 4th strain). You can go into the yeast at various points and follow the appearance of mutations of the kind that randomly occur in the genomes of these strains. The sugar-expert appears first, the acetate-expert second and so on. Here you have every aspect of evolution occurring in a beaker – mutation, competition and selection.
3. The similarities are based on descent, not environment. For example, whales are more similar to land mammals in everything (DNA, protein, physiology, etc, etc) than they are to other fish. If fish are so well designed for the water, why do whales use the mammalian design? Why do they have useless introns in the same places as land mammals, but not fish? Why do they have similar deleterious transposons in their genome?
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM
the creator-less theory, often some form of macro evolution in which in the beginning lightening struck a mud puddle….has been disproven by science long ago(see laws of Thermodynamics for starters), yet its still taught by force in schools.
jp on June 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM
really? what is a natural process, please define it. and how do you know God is not behind what you consider a ‘natural’ process?
why because you say so?
evolution doesn’t use the ’scientific method’ and yet you think it validates that method. interesting.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Kids! Their minds blow up so fast these days.
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
No Scientist has ever observed macro-evolution, just micro/adaptive. never one species turning into a completely different species.
jp on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM
They’re out there and I’m sure you’re aware of them. I’m actually at work at the moment, but I might find one later.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
K, for realies last post.
Irreducibly complexity: A irreducibly complex system is one which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway. (Behe)
Test for veracity of any particular claim of irreducible complexity in a biological motor system: Describe a realistic,
continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. (Source [pdf])
Darwinism demands a continuous (i.e. analog) evolutionary transition function from the first life to all life. ID points out various instances of non-continuity (i.e. digital steps) that demand either a plausible, realistic explanation within the context of a continuous Darwinian model (thus falsifying the claim of design) or an acceptance of the reality of intentional design.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 4:48 PM
We owe a massive tip o’the hat to Darwin for pointing us in an extremely fruitful direction.
Evolution has never attempted to predict anything, it has only ever offered an illuminating view upon a incomprehensibly vast framework of biological change over vast stretches of time.
Smart people have taken up the torch and dug deeper into very narrow areas and given us finer-grained understandings of how, for example, bacteria can evolve, and how we can design drugs to deal with them.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:48 PM
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma’s creation.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Chairs being thrown and breaking mirrors yet?
aikidoka on June 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM
the Scientific Method was invented by Creationist Christians, like nearly all modern science, and at its core has a Biblical pressuposition. That God controls the universe and makes things like Scientific Laws possible, and thus observable because beleiving in a reasonable God, you can then Rationally assume that past events are predictive of future.
Atheist Scientist can’t use the SM and be rational. Under their worldview everything is constantly evolving and random. They have no reason to beleive that Yesterday is predictive of today and that the sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west. Under their worldview the Scientific Laws, mathematical laws…laws of Logic, etc. should all be evolving and changing by chance, randomly. Since its such a ludicrious idea, they borrow from biblical worldview assumptions and live irrationally.
jp on June 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM
then why wouldn’t these be ‘evolved’ out of the population?
you’re asking why they were designed like this, ok, why did they evolve like this?
you have every aspect of micro-evolution..so?
how do you know these are useless? is this like the appendix, which was thought to be vestigial?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
The only thing that I can say for certain (based on the preponderance of the evidence) after reading this or other similar threads at HotAir, is that AllahPundit is most definitely a divider, not a uniter. (Will he blame it all on Jindal?)
My collie says:
Certainly, a case can be made that there are boorish posters on all sides of the argument — but did we learn anything new here? Very little has been said about Jindal. I want to know if the atheists (with conservative political views) think that he is now unacceptable as a VP candidate. That won’t tell me much about Jindal, but it will tell me a LOT about the atheists (the ones that call themselves conservatives anyway).
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Saying that evolution no longer requires a creator, doesn’t mean it can test hypothesis on the existence of a creator. Evolution doesn’t require music either, but I doubt you would say that it disproves music. If the Bible makes specific statements on geology or biology (or is interpreted to make these statement), then science can test these statements (e.g., that the Earth is 6000 years old). But that is again entirely irrelevant to the idea that science can disprove a creator.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
very true.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Mystical Male Voice: [rumbling sounds] Before the beginning, there was this turtle. And the turtle was alone. And he looked around. And he saw his neighbor, which was his mother, and he lay down on top of his neighbor, [coyote howl] and behold, she bore him in tears, an oak tree, which grew all day, and then fell over, [coyote howl] like a bridge. And low, under the bridge there came a catfish, and he was very big, [coyote howls] and he was walking, [more howls] and he was the biggest he had seen. [starts fading] And so, with the firey balls of this fish, one of which is the sun, and the other, they called the moon… [sounds end]
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
If
there are no CigarsSaintOlaf is in Heaven, I will not go. {updated}- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Calm Male Narator: Yes, some uncomplicated peoples still believe this myth. But here in the technical vastness of The Future, we can guess that surely, the past was very different. [begins fading] We can surmise, for instance, that these two great balls… [sounds end]
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM
please, why bring up God at all in a ’science’ journal?
and did you miss this:
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
how can darwinism scientifically do this?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Babble.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Echoey Male Voice: We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space [reverb effect here]. These insignificant lumps came together to form the first union, our sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gas bag, rotated the earth, a catseye among aggies, [reverb begins to really build] blinking in astonishment across the face… of time. [reverb overwhelmes everything, sounds disappear]
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I’ve always wondered how can an evolutionist/atheist be conservative? what do they base this on?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
JetBoy: No, Intelligent Design is a philosophical position.
Evolutionary theory asks, “why, how, and when,” and attempts to use evidence to explain it.
Creationism says “Why and how” are answered by God, and “when” is in the Bible.
Intelligent Design says “Creationism ignores the evidence, and science provides questions without answers… but divine action would answer those questions.”
The first position is scientific, the second is religious, and the third is philosophical. They should not be taught as different aspects of the same thing. Evolutionary theory should be taught in science class, creationism by religious teachers of that stripe, and intelligent design as a philosophical idea.
If you come up with an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life and species, it must be based on evidence, not philosophy.
E1701 on June 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Do you know that the “vestigial feature” on the whale are not vestigial, or useless whatsoever, but vital for it’s ability to reproduce?
Do whales have vestigial legs? Doesn’t that prove they once walked on land?
No. Whales never had legs. The structures that were once claimed to be vestigial legs, are now known to actually be necessary for reproduction. They anchor these muscles. This structure is only found in the male, and anchor the muscles attached to the penis.
You keep using flawed evidence and examples of natural selection.
Natural selection in no way proves the unscientific theory of macro evolution.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
First Male Lecturer: [lecture room noises, voice quiet in the room] Well, we were covered with a molten scum of rocks, bobbing on the surface like rats. Later, when there was less heat, these giant rock groups settled down among the land masses. During this extinct time, our Earth was like a steamroom, and no one, not even man, could get in. [coughs start in audience] However, the oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew, and the mountains moved in to surround and protect them. They didn’t know then that living as we know it was already taken over. Thank you. [a round of applause, constant coughs begin]
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
yeah eugenics, racism, naziism all benefited from darwin and his beloved theory.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
right4life: Philosophically. I’m agnostic, and have no use for organized religion – but I derive my philosophy (which is broadly conservative) and morals from life experience, my specialty in history, and previous thinkers… not from a religious pretext.
That’s how you get atheist and agnostic conservatives who are getting rather annoyed with the more evangelical members of our philosophical pool who can’t recognize multiple paths to the same endpoint.
E1701 on June 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I was wondering how long it would take someone to link a paper from the Discovery Institute.
Good grief.
The irreducible complexity thesis is fundamentally flawed insofar as it assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been so, and could not have been either added sequentially or through the alteration/vestigalization of existing components.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next »