Moderator: Fist and Faith
But what is the probability that old lady would be able to parlay her experience into a burgeoning career as a morning TV show interviewee?CovenantJr wrote: It's as likely as an old lady knocking over a trolley filled with tins of Spam and the tins landing in a pattern that forms a likeness of Winston Churchill.
Well, son of a gun, how about that! Thanks for the update, Kins.Kinslaughterer wrote:Behe's premise was addressed by other evolutionary biologists and completely disproved. He later admitted to not actually testing his theory and then finally rejecting his own hypothesis
Well, again I wish I could read the rebuttal to Behe on this and the other issues he raised. He spent a chapter detailing his biochemical view of vision, so I'd like to read an equally detailed rebuttal that explains why he was so wrong. Has anyone written a book in response to Behe's, or is there a web article out there about the scientific response to Behe that I can read?Loremaster wrote:The evolution of vision is not so complex.
www.newshounds.us/2005/08/02/oreilly_ca ... ascist.phpO'Reilly Calls National Academy Of Sciences Fascist
President Bush stated yesterday during a press conference that he believes that schools should discuss intelligent design alongside evolution when teaching kids about the creation of life. Bill O'Reilly not only defended this position tonight, he accused the National Academy Of Sciences of fascism because they rejected Intelligent Design. 8/02/05
O'Reilly acted as if it was perfectly reasonable for Bush to announce that Intelligent Design and Evolution be taught together. He used the usual spin about Intelligent Design claiming that it stems from a belief that life is too complex and must have been created by a higher power.
The National Academy of Sciences made this objection to the inclusion of Intelligent Design into school curriculum and O'Reilly called them fascist.
''The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted," the academy said in a 1999 assessment. ''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life
or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."
Dr Paul Gross, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse, joined the discussion and really made Bill twist his words. Gross immediately made it clear that the Intelligent Design theory is anti science and does not belong in the classroom.
When O'Reilly realized that he had no argument and looked like a fool, he brought abortion into the debate asking Dr Gross if he would teach his students about performing an abortion without telling them that it was morally wrong. Gross replied , "You would have to be in first year medical school in Obstetrics class." Bill didn't like that warning Gross that he was going to lose the audience. Somehow it didn't look like Paul Gross cared about losing O'Reilly's audience.
But not scientifically testable or provable, so how do you teach it? All you could get is a one-liner from the teacher. "I should point out that some believe that this degree of complexity could only come from a supreme being" or some such before he goes back to teaching the science of the subject.safetyjedi wrote:You know, what's weird is, that after taking two masters level courses in evolutionary biology and symbiotic relationships, it actually strengthened my beliefs that we are created. It is perfectly a viable solution and answer to the question of how the first cell was formed.
The way I read it, that's kind of an interesting, hybrid theory. That possibly the seeds of life are divine, but that evolution is a built-in modification sequence.safetyjedi wrote:You are right, the teacher should present the info just that way, and let the students come up with their own conclusions. I must tell you Kins, that evolutionary theory does deal with origin of life, or else this would not be an issue. That first cell had to evolve into something else in order to support the theory. My classes did nothing but prove to me that it was just that a theory, as I could find no hard facts to support it, and I did do a lot of research in my reporductive strategies paper, (which by the had nothing to do with what you might think it is.) I got an "a" in the class btw. Anyway, everyone should be free to believe what they will and all viable options in an area like this where there is no hard and fast answer should simply be presented and again let the students make up their own minds. And it should be done in a way that does not favor one over another.
Perfectly viable? I suppose, ". . . and then a miracle happened" is always "viable," as long as you're willing to believe in magic and the supernatural. But if you're going to go that route, why bother trying to scientificaly explain anything at all? If you're going to accept a miracle every time you run up against the limits of our knowledge, then you are no longer doing science. This is the same as throwing your hands up and saying, "I don't know, and no longer care to find out. Let's say God did it and go home."after taking two masters level courses in evolutionary biology and symbiotic relationships, it actually strengthened my beliefs that we are created. It is perfectly a viable solution and answer to the question of how the first cell was formed.
Sure, but as I understand it, evolution deals with that process, not with how that cell got there in the first place. Right?safetyjedi wrote:...evolutionary theory does deal with origin of life, or else this would not be an issue. That first cell had to evolve into something else in order to support the theory...
Good Point.