Louisiana science coalition begs Jindal: Veto the creationism bill
posted at 9:10 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via LGF, showcasing a killer quote from Jindal’s college biology professor, the Louisiana Coalition for Science makes its case. The bill’s been on his desk since yesterday, having passed the state senate 36-0 and the house 94-3. You’ll find the text here, scoured of any references to creationism or intelligent design and mentioning religion only in a heavy-handed section aimed at shielding the bill from the inevitable Establishment Clause challenge. I recommend reading the annotated version instead, but whatever you do, note that the state isn’t compelling every school district to teach ID; they’re leaving it up to each local school board that wants to teach it to request permission to do so. That’s another concession aimed at limiting the scope of the legislation to maximize its chances of surviving a constitutional challenge, although in light of what Jindal had to say about empowering individual school districts on “Face the Nation,” it might be there to make the bill more attractive to him, too.
Given the size of the majorities in both houses, it’s going to pass no matter what he does. Even so, I’m curious to see how he games this politically. If he signs it, he leaves himself open to attack from the left four years from now. If he vetoes it, he pisses off the base. If he does nothing … it becomes law in 20 days, although that would indicate a certain lack of backbone on the hottest of hot button issues. Prediction: He signs it.
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 … 8 Next »
“Honey, I have to stay up late.”
“But why?”
“Someone on the internet is WRONG.”
Saw that on Ace. It fits here, I think.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 1:02 AM
It’s not late in California.
Rose on June 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Voltaire was not a mathematician. He was a clever intellectual who wrote stories and novels.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Spirituality is on the rise, MB4, not on the decline. It’s been on the rise for awhile now. Remember in the 60′s with the drugs and “mystical experiences”? Eastern religions that were being introduced in America and other parts of the West at that time?
That wasn’t a just a phase, MB4, it’s become mainstreamed. What do you think Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, all those goofy card games with collectible spells and spirit characters have in common?
Higher planes (spiritual planes) of existence, mind projection, out-of-body manifistations, that’s what they have in common.
If anyone thinks that faith and religion are on the way out, they are blindly ignorant of what’s screaming at them from every corner of society.
Religion will NEVER go away.
The sad part is that as much as people realize that there is a realm outside of ours, one that touches ours, most people misunderstand it.
Atheism will never capture the minds of men because there is no promise in it. No consistency to it. No answers to it that will satisfy mens (and women’s of course) need to understand the purpose of life.
Because that’s what it really comes down to. Always.
Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Simple logic:
If it is public it must be neutral.
If it is education it cannot be neutral
If it is public education it must be and cannot be neutral.
Therefore public education is self-defeating.
We should not have public education. For your and everyone else’s claim of public education being neutral, it can not be without teaching Theism along side of the Naturalism. Presently, we have the religion of Material Monism (Naturalism) being taught in public education. Therefore, we need to end public education or at least bring arguments again Naturalism.
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 1:08 AM
My point was that scientists don’t want to see the evidence that is contrary to their pre-conceived notion of evolution. And when they do see it they nuance it with all sorts of . . . well it was a ‘mutation’ – which isn’t science.
It isn’t about a pursuit of God. It is about the perception of the absolute necessity that there can’t be a God in order for their theories (evolution) to be plausible. That causes bad theories and flawed science. It has nothing to do with God other than the fact that atheists make it that way.
If I find evidence that disproves evolution lock stock and barrel, then that’s that. It doesn’t have anything to do with God. The only way that would have something to do with God would be if an evolutionist claims the messenger with this evidence is a ‘religious fanatic’.
That’s what it boils down to in the scientific community. They believe it is either evolution or Creation because there is no other plausible theory – when scientifically that isn’t accurate. It isn’t one or the other. It could be neither. But you can disprove one without proving the other. That’s why some idiot decided it would be as appropriate to come up with a flying spaghetti monster to mock Creationists . . . when actually they are mocking the evolutionists who created their theory exactly the same way. . . out of whole cloth.
The scientific community doesn’t recognize that as valid. So any ‘attack’ on their theory – legitimate though they may be – is dismissed as being an overly religious position.
Their need to not have a God causes their science to be flawed because they dismiss important evidence. I don’t say that to claim that science is the search for God as you claimed by quoting me. Atheists and evolutionists claim anyone disagreeing with them is ‘religious fanatic’ whether they are or not. It causes bad science.
ThackerAgency on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 AM
The argument based on improbability is NOT specious, but based on well-recognized chemical laws of statistical thermodynamics. Based on typical reaction rates, even over billions of years the probability of forming a single functional protein molecule, with amino acids in the right order, would be less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power. In addition, Le Chatelier’s Principle states that excess reaction products tend to reverse a reaction–two amino acids reacting generate water, which would tend to break up proteins.
The postulate of abiogenesis (which I do not conflate with evolution) contradicts the laws of chemistry. Therefore, prior to the appearance of life, either something suspended the laws of entropy and Le Chatelier’s Principle, or something organized the first living cell, unless we assume that life existed “forever” and there was no beginning to the universe, which conflicts Big Bang theory. If there was a beginning, even a Big Bang, an “intelligent designer” is needed, at least some time in the past, to organize the first living cell.
Intelligent Design theory, which is a fairly new development, doesn’t yet have all the answers. It is an attempt to postulate an alternative to the scientific contradictions inherent in evolution theory and abiogenesis.
Evolution theory may have seemed plausible in Darwin’s time, when chemical laws were poorly understood, and the chemical complexity of living cells was unknown. But later scientific discoveries have demonstrated the scientific weaknesses of evolution theory which are obvious to those with open minds, who do not have a financial interest (research grants, etc.) in defending evolution theory.
Let’s not bash Jindal on this. If the state legislature of Louisiana is overwhelmingly open to teaching ID in schools, Jindal should respect the will of the legislature and sign the bill.
Steve Z on June 18, 2008 at 1:15 AM
You’re right, and this is what amazes me about how people look at scientists.
People realize that everyone has biases. Politicians, theologins, lawyers, philosophers, etc. It’s common knowledge.
But when it comes to SCIENTISTS (read, ‘evolutionists’), well, huh, “They don’t have biases!”
Are they human beings? (Yes.)
Do they get paid? (Yes.)
Do they hold a worldview? (Yes.)
Are they perfect in mind? (No.)
Well, then they have biases.
Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 1:25 AM
And that proves what? I predict that someone will win the November elections. What does that prove? His idea of a biological mechanism that transferred hereditary information and the discovery of DNA a few decades later does not prove evolution. The only thing that DNA proves is how genetic material replicates. It does not show how it changes from a blob of goo into the brilliant foreign policy expert, Jimmy Carter.
Of course it was significant. But it has yet to show how an amoeba morphs into a complex organism over time. Man has yet to devise a test where an organism will morph into a completely different organism complete with a different DNA sequence.
Take a look at the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans. On the genetic level, they are darn close. 95% close.
Does this mean that we have a common ancestor? No. Not really. All it means is that 95% of our genes share similarities. It does not prove that over millions of years our genes some how magically deviated from one another giving us Bonzo and Einstein.
The only thing evolution has is a bunch of facts made to fit a supposition.
Sorry, but when one considers the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics, the improbability argument holds a great deal more weight than you are willing to admit.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 1:34 AM
So what would you have scientists do, insert a god-factor into the scientific method? 2 + x = 4, “x” being the god-factor?
That concept would obliterate the purpose of science. Science isn’t about obscuring the truth or affirming religion, it’s about discovering the meaning of “x”.
To conflate science and atheism is a total mischaracterization. After combining science with religion it is no longer science, because science is the pursuit of the unknown, not the acceptance of it.
This is the fundamental problem some religious people have with science.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Well stated.
.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Thanks WOG. Great link. I thoroughly enjoyed Sayer’s essay.
Saltysam on June 18, 2008 at 1:38 AM
It seems that evolutionists talk about things like whales and horses hoofs, but I would like to hear their theories on how something like a blood cell evolved, or amniotic fluid, or a placenta. Survival of the fittest does not explain how these things would appear in an organism, especially considering that there is life that does not have these characteristics.
Rose on June 18, 2008 at 1:40 AM
First off, as a philosophy ID is fine. I actually believe in a form of it myself. As science, though, it’s crap. You have to understand what science is, first.
You also seem to have a nice handle on some of the jargon, but the problem is that you apparently don’t understand much beyond it. Locally, even within any closed system, there are areas where entropy can decrease without it being in any way a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It’s over the system as a whole that entropy must increase. Likewise the argument you’ve lifted from somewhere with regards to the chemical processes involved with protiens. Obviously, protiens exist. Unless you are suggesting that God makes every strand of protien in every cell in every living thing every second, obviously there is at least one chemical process that allows for the production of protiens. Even in the presence of water.
So, was that Behe or Dembski?
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM
True. But why then does the scientific community insist on ostracizing those opposed to the idea that man is the cause of “Global Warming”? If science is the pursuit of the unknown, then why dismiss the idea of intelligent design outright and insist that evolution is the only acceptable discipline?
Could it because of certain biases? Biases that are really no different than those who accept ID?
.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 1:51 AM
I think you just mischaracterized his conflation.
Saltysam on June 18, 2008 at 1:56 AM
The second law of thermodynamics has absolutely, completely, and positively nothing to do with evolution. The anti-evolutionary arguments that are made based on supposedly thermodynamic principles rely entirely and completely on the ignorance of the audience.
1. When the increase of entropy is referenced, it is only with regards to the total sum of entropy over the entire system, which is assumed to be closed.
a. There is nothing that prevents entropy from decreasing in one part of the system so long as there is an equal or greater increase in entropy in another part of the system.
b. The Earth is not a closed system, thus all entropic arguments with regards to the earth as a system are invalid.
And, yes, I’ve studied thermodynamics.
Genetic studies could kill the concept of evolution by simply finding one modern complex animal that was more closely related to a tree than to any other animal. So, actually, yeah — the genetic similarities between humans and other primates, combined with comparative biology and the fossil record do pretty conclusively demonstrate a remote kinship.
And frankly, I find it far more embarassing to be 7-100 generations removed from Jimmy Carter than to be 70000-1000000 generations removed from Bonzo.
Bonzo is MUCH smarter, and much less likely to throw poop at me. (Unless I dress up like a dictator — Jimmah never met a dictator he didn’t love.)
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 2:06 AM
First, because not all science is valid. The rules of the universe are expansive and complicated and our understanding of them is, probably, a never ending process that evolves over time. Some accepted theories are occasionally reaffirmed and others disproved and discarded. The results of scientific observation are not infallible but the long term results of the process are the best so far devised by man.
Second, because some science is ideologically or economically driven. The government might sponsor a “scientific” study to demonstrate that Marijuana causes reefer-madness. A corporation might sponsor a study to demonstrate that their profitable yet harmful product is safe and affective. An environmental or religious group might sponsor a study to reaffirm their view of the world.
There is a lot of bad science and always has been, but over time the valid science survives scrutiny that the garbage science does not.
I don’t. Like many, I’d be perfectly happy to accept that evolutionary theory is wrong if proven scientifically. In fact I would be excited by the news.
I’ve already admitted that there is a lot of bad science due to bias, but that’s besides the point. There is no real shortcut to the scientific process. Over time the truth with prevail, but some people don’t want to wait for the process to play out and are resorting to the courts and legislatures to impose their shoddy science into our classrooms.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Then you should be able to give me an example of an energetically unfavorable organization occurring spontaneously.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 2:15 AM
I don’t think so… ThackerAgency mentioned more than once in that post that, in essence, science was godless like atheism. While it’s true that it is, it’s because of the very nature of scientific inquiry, not because of atheism. There are a lot of religious scientists even if the percentage is less than the typical in the rest of society.
The reason why science is inherently godless is because god is not quantifiable and can’t be tested scientifically.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 2:15 AM
Of course it has to go to the courts since that is where the problem originated.
I fail to see why individual communities being given the opportunity to offer an alternative to evolution should be considered an “imposition” as long as there is a choice.
The reality is that if we are to hold true to the “scientific method”, then evolution is no more valid or invalid as ID since both require a certain amount of faith.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Science neither starts nor ends in the courts or legislatures. Science is the process of discovering the truth about how everything works. Religions and governments have tried to cover up the truth as revealed by science but the truth eventually prevails. the scientific community can be destroyed, and the classroom is great place to start, but rudimentary scientific inquiry is as natural to the species as religion. With proper education the effectiveness of science increases but it is always there regardless.
Science is bigger than a school board that corrupts their children with pseudo science. Science is bigger than any church or nation. The SCOTUS could pass a law [sic] tomorrow fundamentally altering the way science is practiced in America but it will continue in other nations or, perhaps, on other planets.
If America decides to follow the path of lower educational standards our children will be at a disadvantage in the future. Our nation will continue it’s slide. There will be plenty of other nations who’ll refrain from such foolishness who will rise in our stead.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Then ID doesn’t deserve to be in the science classroom. Why screw up our kids with 2 fairy tales instead of just one? (I’m being sarcastic here, I firmly believe in evolution.)
barry norris on June 18, 2008 at 2:40 AM
In a perfect world.
The problem is that “science” is being used as an excuse rather than the reason.
.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 2:48 AM
So, you’re opposed to people being given the option.
.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 2:49 AM
Irony among Ironies, is that it is the Material Monists who use the court to keep any other scientific theories out of the classroom.
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 3:48 AM
Small problem, Evolution is a philosophy too. It is the philosophy of how life formed through a random guideless process. It is based upon the most basic worldview (which is irrational by the way) that matter is all the exists (Material Monism).
Evolution was developed as a way to answer the philosophy of matter being eternal. Until that point, there way absolutely no way to “claim” with any semblance of rationality that life on this planet “just happened”.
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 3:53 AM
Ah but you see “Intelligent Design”, which probably should be called Unintelligent Design is not a scientific theory any more than Astrology is.
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 3:57 AM
Voltaire was not a mathematician. He was a clever intellectual who wrote stories and novels. – eeethankkk yuuu
Drunk Report on June 18, 2008 at 4:15 AM
Using science to ratify philosophical or theological views is not different from using science to ratify other social-related subjects. It’s not crank science, it’s not a science al all – it just uses existing, accepted, mainstream science to explain the Creation.
People oppose ID because they fear they may just be made accountable for their actions. Theophobes.
Aristotle on June 18, 2008 at 4:17 AM
Most people who oppose ID do so because they think that it, like astrology and alien abductions, is silly.
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 4:20 AM
Yeah except for these little facts:
1. 80% of Americans believe in G-d, and thus in Intelligent Design and in Creation.
2. America was enstablished as a G-d fearing nation (regardless of institutionalized religion, of course) – read your dollar bills.
It kinda, ehm, makes youlook silly…
Aristotle on June 18, 2008 at 4:29 AM
It would be impossible for you to be more wrong about having to teach theism.
There is no CREDIBLE scientist who would ever claim that evolution 100% existed and worked outside of the ‘arms of the lord’ or however you wish to put it.
It is NOT the objective of science to prove or disprove the existence of supreme beings etc.
Theism one the other hand expressly teaches that science is wrong. See the difference?
Teaching creationism in a science class is moronic. Every science class I ever took did take 5 minutes to mention that there are those who believe in creationist theory but to go chat up a priest to learn more about it since it is NOT science. Seems reasonable yes, since creationism is NOT science.
That’s to say nothing of the flood gate you are opening to have the beliefs of other religions flooding into the classroom.
When a kid is in history class studying about the women’s rights movement in the 1920′s should muslim students have the right to have ‘but Islam believes that any woman who does this should be stoned to death and beaten by their husbands for daring to think they are the equal of men’ in the studies and then launch into a 3 week study of the Koran? It’s really no different and in fact, probably more relevant to history class than creationism is the a science class.
MannyT-vA on June 18, 2008 at 5:19 AM
Only science is tought in classroom? Skip much classes?
Aristotle on June 18, 2008 at 6:19 AM
Much of science is moronic. This happened a billion years ago. That happened one hundred million years ago. The universe is how old? They are “blinded by science.”
saved on June 18, 2008 at 7:11 AM
Ergo, evolution relies on imported energy or matter from outer space. Either that, or sunshine (our 1 major import from outer space) provides all the energy needed for the biosphere to reverse entropy.
Do you actually think this is a convincing argument? As an objective observer, it sounds pretty iffy; apart from biology, in the physics lab, there aren’t very many systems where sunlight causes particles to behave contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. Do me a favor and name a few physical systems where this happens.
The irony about the thermodynamics argument from loony creationists (I heard it first from the Young Earth types back in the 1970s) is that, despite the fact that the creationists were clearly religious zealots playing at science, it’s going to turn out that they were right, on this topic anyhow.
The most promising research in microbiology that I’ve seen in the last several years has been from Michael Denton and his associates in Australia observing that genes contain no information about form, and pursuing the notion of neo-platonic forms as a basis for understanding the structures of objects in biology. Short version, they say the forms of bodies are determined by the shapes of the molecules, not by genetics. The plunge into Darwinian evolution in the 19th century took biology on a path completely separate from physics, Denton’s work is making biology and physics into a single discipline again, which, if you think about it, HAS to be correct. We are, after all, constructed from molecules…
My prediction is that in the long run, descent with modification by mutation and genetic drift will turn out to be a minor player in the biosphere, producing local and transitory changes, and the major factors of change will turn out to be other things that are built into the physical structure of the universe. The scientific community’s 19th-century plunge into Darwinism will turn out, in the long run, to have been mostly misdirection.
philwynk on June 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM
And this is my point about science not being objective concerning evolution. Before he can get to the FACT that those offering differing opinions to evolution were SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT, he had to make sure to brand them ‘religious zealots’. Even though they were merely scientists applying the scientific method to evolution.
It’s not about ‘proving God’. God doesn’t have anything to do with it other than when evidence contrary to evolution is presented, it is dismissed as ‘religious fanatic’. I’m not asking for a scientific proof of God.
Your argument would be stronger if it could not be changed and as valid so easily. I think evolution on the face of it is pretty silly, and so do a lot of people. I’d like to believe it is true and believe that eventually my grandkids will be some superhumans with wings or something, but I bet they’ll be mostly like you and me even in hundreds of millions of years.
It is for this reason that evolution theory is flawed. Any evidence that comes up contrary to evolution is deemed ‘religious fanaticism’ instead of SOUND SCIENCE – whether or not the specific evidence has anything to do with Creation or God.
ThackerAgency on June 18, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I have a question for those arguing against evolution:
Are you arguing against the conclusions because you disagree with the evidence; or are you arguing the evidence because you don’t like the conclusions?
I suspect it’s the latter.
backwoods conservative on June 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Make that arguing against the evidence. Lousy proofreading on my part.
backwoods conservative on June 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Naturally there will be upheaval from the left and from the atheist right. This very same reaction took place when the Darwin vs. God heyday of the Scope’s trial hit headlines. And then we all were indoctrinated into believing that the theory of evolution is a provable fact, when it is nowhere near that. So it is only right that what goes around comes around.
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I’m for good education. If even ID supporters think it’s largely based on faith, then it doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
Aristotle, it actually makes you look silly since everything you’ve pointed out has nothing to do with science and truth. Truth is not based on democracy.
On its face, yes. But once you start examining the evidence, it becomes more and more… less silly.:P
barry norris on June 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM
“Out of nothing, nothing comes. It’s all well and good to propose the idea that we came to exist from nothing. Suddenly a “Big Bang” just took place out of an infinite nothingness billions of years ago. And yet this idea is somehow less ridiculous to us than the idea of a creator. We are so willing to put our faith into other humans with PHDs and yet they can’t cure the common cold. How ridiculous does this make us look to God I wonder.” – A.D. Grate
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
barry norris on June 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
This is good news. Hopefully students in LA schools will soon have access to “the best available science” in their schools. Who knows, maybe one of these students will be the next great demonologist who discovers a cure for lycantrophy or cancer!
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
There have been many differing views, opinions and statements made on this thread, of which I would like to make three points.
1) Matter is not the eternal substance. Energy is, which takes many different forms through its eternal life-cycle.
2) The Big Bang did not occur out of nothingness, it came from a state of energy which we cannot record. Therefore, to us it appeared as though it came from “nothing”.
3) As for there never having been a beneficial mutation in nature:- every time a child is born.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Sheesh, here we go again.
THAT makes sense to me, keep it local. Then an Open Minded School District, like the one my kids are in, would be FREE to see EVERY SIDE of the argument. Of course, I’ve already taught their pliable skulls full of mush how to discern right and wrong, and keep their eyes open to everything.
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Yep. ID/Evolution/religion/science threads are as banal as abortion threads.
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM
same old foaming at the mouth darwiniacs so frightened by anything that might challenge their faith in their hairygod darwin…
your hairygod has failed…deal with it..evolution is a lie. there is no ‘evolution’
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM
You have filled their skulls with mush? That I can believe.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
“To be ignorant and simple now . . . would be to throw down our weapons and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen.” — C.S. Lewis
St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary; to one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
But, if you really want to stick your head in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say it is more plausible than an Intelligent Designer, then who’s the fool?
I haven’t seen any evidence from the ID Deniers that order came from chaos. Why is there any order?
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM
This I would expect from Kos Kids and HuffPos.
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
He signs it.
Some other examples of faith based teaching in public schools.
1) Comprehensive sex education leads to a lower rate of diversions a student faces that can obstruct their typical 12 year path to graduation. We teach it anyway.
2) The food pyramid is a scientifically derived formula for good dietary health. It’s not. We teach it anyway.
3) Social Security is a sustainable program for a state with a flat or negative population growth.
4) High School sports encourage long term physical and dietary health. They don’t. We teach them anyway.
If you want creationism in schools then just make it an elective course. There’s really little value in Home Economics or Chef and Restaurant class, but kids take these electives all the time just for the experience. I would have taken a course in Communism if it was offered. I’d know it’s a useless structure of government, but I’d still take it just to learn MORE about it.
gabriel sutherland on June 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Beneficial? You must not have been referring to my post, as it was concerning the addition of information through mutation.
What created the energy?
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Golf clap? Golf clap.
gabriel sutherland on June 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is just another type of creationism. A ridiculous yet delicious type. As such, it is no more or less plausable than the traditional Biblical account of creation.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM
only an athiest could say something so idiotic.
after all these centuries of desperately trying, you atheists cannot disprove the bible, only ridicule it. The bible has proven to be true, over and over.
all you darwiniacs can do is ridicule the bible…but someday you’ll find out to your horror, how true it is…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Evolution as a theory IS FLAWED. That does not make Intelligent Design right or THE ANSWER. The same is true in reverse. However the TEACHING OF I.D. is all about BALANCE in Education.
I.D. Should be taught. Not because it is THE answer but because it is an answer. That it is one which is closely held by the majority of the country should make it required.
I am sick of people blasting the intelligence of I.D. supporters and lamenting the quality of education if it is taught. Our kids are taught evolution and have been for quite some time and our national science scores are abysmal and we have a drop out rate in our schools that is horrifying. Adding a little I.D. to the class room isn’t going to bring science to a halt. anyone who advocates such is engaging in specious fear mongering.
America1st on June 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Then you should be able to give me an example of an energetically unfavorable organization occurring spontaneously.
Crystalization. Ice, salts, etc. Orderly forms appear when energy is lost.
Ergo, evolution relies on imported energy or matter from outer space. Either that, or sunshine (our 1 major import from outer space) provides all the energy needed for the biosphere to reverse entropy.
Do you actually think this is a convincing argument? As an objective observer, it sounds pretty iffy; apart from biology, in the physics lab, there aren’t very many systems where sunlight causes particles to behave contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. Do me a favor and name a few physical systems where this happens.
Weather is a hugely obvious system where sunlight has an anti-entropic impact. Also, weather provides examples of ‘spontaneous organization’ since random storms can coalesce into an organized hurricane.
The most promising research in microbiology that I’ve seen in the last several years has been from Michael Denton and his associates in Australia observing that genes contain no information about form, and pursuing the notion of neo-platonic forms as a basis for understanding the structures of objects in biology. Short version, they say the forms of bodies are determined by the shapes of the molecules, not by genetics. The plunge into Darwinian evolution in the 19th century took biology on a path completely separate from physics, Denton’s work is making biology and physics into a single discipline again, which, if you think about it, HAS to be correct.
In lab animals, supressing or activating different gene sequences can have vast impact on the animal’s resulting form, so I seriously doubt the premise here. I also find the platonic theory of forms to be primitive and, frankly, retarded in the extreme. It is also well outside science, since the ‘archetypal forms’ are assumed to exist on a plane of reality we cannot directly experience. However, I am basing this only on how the concept has been presented here, and I am not familiar with the full argument nor supporting evidence so this isn’t ‘final judgement’ on it. In one respect there is some merit in the idea that molecular structure can be reflected in larger forms — ice along with other crystaline structures, which I mention above, being a clear example. However one abstract opened my eyes: “…protein and RNA folds, microtubular forms and tensegrity structures—which like atoms or crystals self-organize under the direction of physical law…”
Bu…bu…but self-organization is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics! Also the abstracts seem to indicate that Denton is talking about protien forms at the sub-cellular level, not animal forms at the macro-cellular level. Which would be two different things.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
really? then why don’t you go ahead and evolve something in the lab…take a bacteria, and make it a multi-cellular animal..you can even name it.
and why does the tuatara, with the fastest rate of DNA mutation ever seen, not change its physical form…it is a living dinosaur?
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM
all you can do is ridicule the flying spaghetti monster… but someday you’ll find out to your horror, how true it is…
Credo quia absurdum.
phronesis on June 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM
we’ll see who has the last laugh!!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM
THAT IS A LIE, YOU FILTHY LYING LIAR!!!!!ONE11!!!1!!1ELEVENTY!!!111ONE
We “darwiniacs” can ridicule lots things other than the bible.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I’ve never seen one of you dare ridicule the muslims….and we all know why!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Because they are bunch of idiotic religious fanatics who take their bronze age fairytales a bit too seriously? You’re right, I would never ridicule that.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM
And I hear that they have sex with goats also.
Just sayin.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM
yeah you atheists are real ‘courageous’….
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM
go to your local mosque, and say that. or publish it where they know who you are…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
A test of Jindal’s mettle. If he has a shred of intellectual integrity, he should veto this transparent attempt to usurp the education system with religious drivel.
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
yeah thats all evolution is. atheism posing as science.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
As to addition of information in a given mutation, that happens infrequently. However, it did happen at every stage of development of hominids. Each time a child is born, there is change of information – which may include addition.
As to who created energy, I stated that it is eternal. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed – only converted to another form.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Actually, energy remains as energy, no matter how we witness its presence (heat, light etc). The actual law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Addition of what?
The Secular Humanism of Evolution is religious drivel, just because you don’t worship on Sunday, you might worship hedonism daily.
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Its just part of being an atheistic, baal-worshiping, satanic, marxist, nazi, member of the illuminati.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
yeah and you’re all boringly the same…pretentious, arrogant, psuedo-intellectual, legend in your own minds…
but its what to expected when you are your own little god
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
You are correct, sir. It’s been a long time since I’ve had to recite that law.
I was thinking more along the lines of the theory that energy is the “substance” that forms all matter, from the sub- atomic upward. It is a pity that we cannot ever prove it.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Mega Dittos!
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Thanks, and the same to you Sir.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
In some cases what is added is additional copies of existing genes. Since these additional copies are not necessary for the proper functioning of the being, they do not suffer the constraints of natural selection which might cause them to be weeded out. They are then free to undergo variation, which will sometimes create new structures which are beneficial to the species.
backwoods conservative on June 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I could tell you knew what you were talking about :)
I was just being anal, s’all ;)
We cannot ‘prove’ it right now, but we might one day. Until then, the theory is serving us well.
Of course, it could all be intelligent pixies, fairies and angels holding the world together……
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
As a parallel to your discussion, there is a theory that claims we owe our evolutionary diversity to background radiation. Without it, there may not be a ‘random’ means to trigger mutation.
Interesting thought.
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
By all means, do feel flattered if it suits you.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
This was fun. But I gotta go, RLS. I am sure by the time I get back this thread will have grown by 200 posts.
Bye right4life
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Nuh uh. We’re like, totally going to get this all sorted out right here and right now.
Here’s how it works. I’m right, you’re wrong. Q.E.D. See, that was easy.
Also Ninja Turtles. They’re heroes in a half-shell, you know.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM
An example of Koranic science: thunder is the voice of genies. Obviously its crap science, since thunder sounds NOTHING like Barbara Eden. QED, people.
Also, Babs is teh tres muy bien hottie.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Great. Glad that’s sorted out. Now for some beer.
Make great soup too
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Shhh! Not so loud, the missus might find out. :)
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Any addition of information in the womb is only the result of the orderly process of the human body building a life. A random genetic mutation adding information to a cell, when has that happened in recorded history?
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Affirmative!
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM
During every stage of development of the hominid species. On our journey from Ape to Homo Sapiens, additions via mutations have allowed for a more and more complex creature. The most significant addition being that of brain size, which would require more complex genetic instructions to build.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Those who would deny evolution via mutation and natural selection will have to deny the evidence contained in their own genes:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all
Here is a trenchant quote:
The discovery helped mark the beginning of a new approach to biology. “If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.
Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.
Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.
Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I cannot see the harm in teaching ID in schools, provided that there are some guidelines for it. Off the top of my head, those guidelines would include the following:
1. It’s clearly defined as a philosophy, not science or religion. The differences between the three would have to made explicit.
2. It’s offered as an elective for advanced students (by advanced I mean students who have been taught scientific method, critical thinking skills, and possibly an ethics course as well)
3. The class is specifically set up with the intention to teach the issues in exhaustive detail, then debate them.
The idea of censoring any line of thought or debate is repugnant to me. I would much rather have smart kids exposed to these ideas. Some of them will someday develop better, possibly revolutionary, insights, methods, ideas, etc.
RushBaby on June 18, 2008 at 12:05 PM
laughable. mutations have been tried, and they fail…sorry
The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. 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. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components
link
your beloved theory, and pliagarizing hairygod darwin, is on the way out:
Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.
link
and go ahead and explain the tuatara…that ‘evovles’ at the DNA level faster than any other animal, yet isa living dinosaur…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM
its evolution that is the religion, not ID
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Perhaps I should rephrase my question and ask, “When has this BEEN PROVEN to have happened in recorded history.” If you presuppose the theory of evolution is right, then you would assume these changes to have occured. But you cannot use evolution to prove evolution. That’s like me saying to you “The Bible is fact because the Bible says so.”
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Well put.
Vaporman87 on June 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
A ridiculous nonresponse. You have not in the least addressed the incontrovertible fact of multitudes of artifactual retroviral sequences found in precisely isomorphic locations in human and primate DNA, and how to explain this other than by inheritance from common ancestors. And indeed, it is statistically incredible that such massive retroviral sequence isomorphism could have occurred serendipitously; which is why you did not address it; that such retroviral sequential artifectual isomorphism is, and can only be, the result of such inheritance from common ancestors is, quite simply, irrefutable. It is you who are ludicrous and laughable, although I choose to pity your willful ignorance instead.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM
yeah and you’re all boringly the same…pretentious, arrogant, psuedo-intellectual, legend in your own minds…but its what to expected when you are your own little god
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I’m having an irony overdose. I can’t imagine a better example of projection.
ronsfi on June 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
There were no “Dark Ages”. That’s cartoon history.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Common Descent and Natural Selection have been useful and provisional. In what way does ID meet these two scientific requirements?
Also ID requires a supernatural agent as part of its explanation. Doesn’t that lead to questions about the agent itself and its motives? Isn’t that beyond the realm of science?
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next »