[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[Tenchi]

The bait: evolution is observed, verified, as sure as gravity, etc. The switch: evolution accounts for all life we see. No ID scientist I know of rejects micro-evolution, the small changes we see within species. Behe specifically challenged macro-evolution, the idea natural selection acting on mutations accounts for all the features found in life.

Thanks, Vaccine, for the heads-up. I'm aware of the "bait and switch," as you call it, and the equivocation of folks like Barbarian who hope those they want to cow and confuse about the ToE aren't as clear on the multiplying distinctions and qualifications layered onto the ToE that its adherents have to throw up to avoid admitting the basic scientific bankruptcy of the theory.

Small changes - adaptations - within a species do occur, but the "goo to you by way of the zoo" evolution of living things that Darwin proposed is impossible, as the Intelligent Design hypothesis reveals.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

It's not about breeds. Even the most primitive domestic dogs are anatomically very different than wolves. It's not just anatomy. They are biochemically different, being more able to digest grains, for example. And they have a mutation that makes them more inclined to respond to humans.

We've evolved to get along with them, too. Neurologically, we are attuned to dogs.

I wonder why you keep citing differences which don't show how mankind evolved from lower life forms.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

We've even coevolved neurologically. Would you like to learn about that?


You're a little confused. Humans and dogs didn't interact until long after humans came to be.

Humans and Dogs Use Same Brain Area to Get Others' Emotions​

Humans and Dogs Use Same Brain Area to Get Others' Emotions

Human and dog brains process sounds in similar ways, and this may allow the two species to understand each other's emotions, new research shows.

www.livescience.com

It's interesting that both species used existing structures and processes to develop the emotional communication that make humans and dogs a symbiotic pairing. It's an example of exaption, the recruitment of existing traits to new uses.
It's interesting to consider that while other apes can't figure out what we mean when we point at things, dogs seem to immediately get it without training. Pretty much the way we immediately get it when a dog suddenly freezes and stares off in a specific direction.

I wonder why you keep citing likenesses which don't show how mankind evolved from lower life forms.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

No, that's wrong, too. My daughter and her friends often did "at the flagpole" prayers and...

I wasn't talking about what your daughter and her friends do apart from my over taxed State run "give me the answer I believe or you'll fail" school system.

 

[Uncle J]

The idea a "some 'designer' intentionally inserts necessary mutations to make the system work." is a mischaracterization of intelligent design theory. Do you want to know what ID theory actually states?

Again, another mischaracterization. While the Dover court decision was not kind. New scientific findings have vindicated Behe many times. Would you like to learn about them?

Nah, "intelligent design" was a legal/political strategy to get creationist talking points into public school science classes after federal courts had banned teaching creationism in those classes. The creationists hoped that by stripping creationism of its overt references to God and the Bible, they'd be able to sneak their material in. Fortunately Judge Jones in the Dover case saw right through that and issued a ruling that effectively killed ID.

No one is trying to get it taught in public school science classes anymore, and as a science it's never accomplished a single thing (which stands to reason since it was never actually science in the first place). Once the DI shut down their "research arm", that pretty much ended any pretense that ID was some sort of scientific endeavor.

IOW, it's dead. Time to let it go. If you're a Christian who believes the God of the Bible created things, why not just go with that and not go through all the effort of trying to prop up the façade of "Oh it's not a religious belief, it's purely science"? Seems much easier, open, and honest to me.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have to move. I live in the USA, where God is no longer honored in my over taxed State run school system.

No, that's wrong, too. My daughter and her friends often did "at the flagpole" prayers and their FCA club met on school time. The key is the students initiated this on their own, without the direction of school employees. You see, all that's perfectly legal in public schools. Only thing is, the state (school employees) can't direct it.

I wasn't talking about what your daughter and her friends do

Just pointing out that you're wrong. Seriously wrong. Now, if you're upset that the government isn't allowed to impose religion, then moving to another nation would be the best move for you.

apart from my over taxed State run "give me the answer I believe or you'll fail" school system.

You live in Florida? Sorry.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have to move. I live in the USA, where God is no longer honored in my over taxed State run school system.

No, that's wrong, too. My daughter and her friends often did "at the flagpole" prayers and their FCA club met on school time. The key is the students initiated this on their own, without the direction of school employees. You see, all that's perfectly legal in public schools. Only thing is, the state (school employees) can't direct it.

 

[Barbarian]

I wonder why you keep citing likenesses which don't show how mankind evolved from lower life forms.

Because humans and dogs began our partnership after H. sapiens evolved. But if you'd like to see some of the hominid fossils that your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise calls "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." we can do that. Here's a partial list of the important ones:

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let me know if you want some details on any of them. BTW, evolution isn't about "lower life forms"; all existing organisms on Earth have an equally long evolutionary history. But if there's some step in the evolution of humans from whatever point that you think is impossible, I'll see if there's a transitional for you. What would you like to see?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Now, if you're upset that the government isn't allowed to impose religion, then moving to another nation would be the best move for you.

I'm not upset. I understand why government chose to remove God from the classroom.

You live in Florida? Sorry.

When it's cold in NY.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

No, that's wrong, too. My daughter and her friends often did "at the flagpole" prayers and their FCA club met on school time. The key is the students initiated this on their own, without the direction of school employees. You see, all that's perfectly legal in public schools. Only thing is, the state (school employees) can't direct it.

God bless your daughter and her friends.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Because humans and dogs began our partnership after H. sapiens evolved. But if you'd like to see some of the hominid fossils that your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise calls "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." we can do that. Here's a partial list of the important ones:

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let me know if you want some details on any of them. BTW, evolution isn't about "lower life forms"; all existing organisms on Earth have an equally long evolutionary history. But if there's some step in the evolution of humans from whatever point that you think is impossible, I'll see if there's a transitional for you. What would you like to see?

I appreciate your sincerity, but showing me fossils of what any scientist thinks is a pre-human being is nonsense.

 

[Barbarian]

I appreciate your sincerity, but showing me fossils of what any scientist thinks is a pre-human being is nonsense.

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist and a paleontologist. So he knows what he's talking about. It's about evidence. He has it. You don't.

God bless your daughter and her friends.

It's every student's right to honor God or not honor God in public schools.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not upset. I understand why government chose to remove God from the classroom.

They didn't and can't. I became a teacher after I retired. Once, I assigned students to make posters on a certain scientific issue. Two of them chose to make religious arguments on their posters. The principal said he'd go to bat for me if anyone complained about them being posted in my classroom. It was legal, because students did it, not me.

 

[Vaccine]

Nah, "intelligent design" was a legal/political strategy to get creationist talking points into public school science classes after federal courts had banned teaching creationism in those classes. The creationists hoped that by stripping creationism of its overt references to God and the Bible, they'd be able to sneak their material in. Fortunately Judge Jones in the Dover case saw right through that and issued a ruling that effectively killed ID.

No one is trying to get it taught in public school science classes anymore, and as a science it's never accomplished a single thing (which stands to reason since it was never actually science in the first place). Once the DI shut down their "research arm", that pretty much ended any pretense that ID was some sort of scientific endeavor.

IOW, it's dead. Time to let it go. If you're a Christian who believes the God of the Bible created things, why not just go with that and not go through all the effort of trying to prop up the façade of "Oh it's not a religious belief, it's purely science"? Seems much easier, open, and honest to me.

Intelligent design theory never was a legal strategy. Sure Philip Johnson, a lawyer, screwed up trying to push it.
But the scientists behind the theory had no such ambitions. The subtitle of Behe's book is the biochemical challenge to evolution. He set out to challenge the limit of Darwin's theory. You seem a reasonable person, do you honestly think challenging the limits of Darwin's theory is a legal strategy? Or that irreducible-complexity is about creationism?

 

[Vaccine]

Thanks, Vaccine, for the heads-up. I'm aware of the "bait and switch," as you call it, and the equivocation of folks like Barbarian who hope those they want to cow and confuse about the ToE aren't as clear on the multiplying distinctions and qualifications layered onto the ToE that its adherents have to throw up to avoid admitting the basic scientific bankruptcy of the theory.

Small changes - adaptations - within a species do occur, but the "goo to you by way of the zoo" evolution of living things that Darwin proposed is impossible, as the Intelligent Design hypothesis reveals.

Hi,
You're doing an excellent job defending ID and pointing out the flaws in their logic. I figured you knew the bait and switch tactic but I thought Behe's own words were relevant.

 

[Vaccine]

It's what Behe says. He admits macroevolution to some degree, but he supposes an "edge of evolution", where a designer must "design" further evolution.

Can you provide the quote? "to some degree" is vague. The subtitle of Behe's first book makes clear what he set out to do, provide a biochemical challenge to evolution. In his book he quoted Darwin:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Behe has shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through the concept of "irreducible complexity."

ID is not a scientific theory. It's a theistic philosophy. From the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
...
Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

(Note - This is the text of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998.

ncse.ngo

That's philosophy, perhaps a new religion. But it's not science. This is why a federal court found it to be a religion, not a science, and therefore not to be taught in public school science classes. A huge problem was the Of Pandas and People textbook which was a creationist textbook, hastily edited to change a few words to avoid connection to creationism. Too hastily, it turns out...

And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[22] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[31] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[25][28]

Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once people actually learn what intelligent design theory is and not the caricature found in pop-culture they generally accept it. Steven Meyer in interviews, his books, and articles tells of how accepting other scientists are of intelligent design theory. As you're fond of saying, people are often down on things they aren't up on.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist and a paleontologist. So he knows what he's talking about. It's about evidence. He has it. You don't.

I believe the earth is young too, which doesn't leave time for humans to "transition" from a nonhuman to a human.

It's every student's right to honor God or not honor God in public schools.

Then have the students hononr God on the final exam.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

They didn't and can't. I became a teacher after I retired. Once, I assigned students to make posters on a certain scientific issue. Two of them chose to make religious arguments on their posters. The principal said he'd go to bat for me if anyone complained about them being posted in my classroom. It was legal, because students did it, not me.

I was talking about the decision to ban prayer and the Bible from public schools, as it violated the ammendment on government establishing a particular religion, but but God says,

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Psa.33:12

 

[Barbarian]

I was talking about the decision to ban prayer and the Bible from public schools

Never happened. It banned government from imposing prayer and the Bible in public schools. Students can and do pray in public schools and bring their Bibles. What bothers the bad guys is that they can't force those things on students.

as it violated the ammendment on government establishing a particular religion

No, that's wrong too. Our religious freedoms prevent government from imposing any religion at all, at the same time those freedoms prevent government from stopping us from practicing religion if we so chose. Which is exactly the way it must be in a free society.

but but God says,

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Psa.33:12

Do you not see that if the government imposes it on us, it's not the nation whose God is the Lord?






Like Quote Reply

Report

 

[Barbarian]

I believe the earth is young too, which doesn't leave time for humans to "transition" from a nonhuman to a human.

He doesn't think there was time, either. He's just honest enough to admit that there is very good evidence that there was.

It's every student's right to honor God or not honor God in public schools.

Then have the students hononr God on the final exam.

Sorry, that's against our religious freedoms and against God's will. He wants us to come to Him freely, not under government compulsion.