MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-07-2005, 03:53 AM   #166
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Isn't macroevolution basically defined as one specied evolving into a separate species? If so, what evidence is there of that?
The emergence of new forms of goatsbeard that cannot breed with other forms in the continental US is an example of macroevolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing, they are only distinguishing scale of the event. Speciation events are caused by some reproductive barrier between populations of the same species and subsequent microveolution events occuring on each seperate population until they can no longer interbreed ~ at that point they are considered to be new species.

1 change may be a very small variation, but put in thousands of changes over the course of thousands, even tens of thousands of years and it adds up.

A good example of speciation by reproductive barriers in Drosophila species on the Hawaiian Islands. Because new Islands are formed by means of a fixed mantle plume melting the crust and bringing melts up to the surface while the plates move over when they are setteld by 'founders' they are reproductively isolated. This has allowed the frut flies to speciate.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 05:45 AM   #167
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jphelmet


They were not concerned with exact time and minute. This is not a fair criteria for if it was meant to be an accurate history. By your criteria there is no history written in the 1st century. They were as You say "written to be as accurate as possible" - that is what an historical account is.
No I would say there are primary sources, not a historical account. I would aslo say there is substantial evidence, based on tablets that have been found that parts of the Old Testament asa we know it, have been organized wrong. But that was discussed in another thread in here.

When there is direct evidence that there were multiple writers of the old testament, who each had their own reasons for writing, and making modifications to the others work, I would say it is difficult to call it a historical book.

If you believe it to be a historically accurate book, and a science book, great. I am clearly not going to change your mind. That is not even getting into some of the errors of the book.

I do not believe the writers of the book, a book that I value as a Christian, ever intended the book to be used to base scientific education on, and I would have issues with teaching it in my classroom.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 05:57 AM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:51 AM
[Q]The Evolution Wars
When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is "intelligent design" a real science? And should it be taught in schools?
By CLAUDIA WALLIS
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Aug. 07, 2005
Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in rural Dover, Pa., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen, will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary preamble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part: Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.

The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

After that one-minute reading, the superintendent will probably depart without any discussion, and a lesson in evolutionary biology will begin.

That kind of scene, brief and benign though it might seem, strikes horror into the hearts of scientists and science teachers across the U.S., not to mention plenty of civil libertarians. Darwin's venerable theory is widely regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science, the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence. But Dover's disclaimer on Darwin would appear to get a passing grade from the man who considers himself America's education President. In a question-and-answer session with Texas newspaper reporters at the White House last week, George W. Bush weighed in on the issue. He expressed support for the idea of combining lessons in evolution with a discussion of "intelligent design"—the proposition that some aspects of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to natural selection. It is a subtler way of finding God's fingerprints in nature than traditional creationism.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught," said the President, who appeared to choose his words with care, "so people can understand what the debate is about ... I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

On its surface, the President's position seems supremely fair-minded: What could possibly be wrong with presenting more than one point of view on a topic that divides so many Americans? But to biologists, it smacks of faith-based science. And that is provocative not only because it rekindles a turf battle that goes all the way back to the Middle Ages but also because it comes at a time when U.S. science is perceived as being under fresh assault politically and competitively.

Just last week, developments ranging from flaws in the space program to South Korea's rapid advances in the field of cloning were cited as examples that the U.S. is losing its edge. Bush's comments on intelligent design were the No. 1 topic for bloggers for days afterward. "It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue," warned Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the 55,000-member National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va. "If I were China, I'd be happy."

As far as many Americans are concerned, however, the President was probably preaching to the choir. In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species—up from 45% with that view in 1994—although other polls have not detected this rise.
[/Q]

This weeks time...very long article....

link to the complete article...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...090836,00.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 01:19 PM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:51 AM
Quote:
As far as many Americans are concerned, however, the President was probably preaching to the choir. In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species—up from 45% with that view in 1994—although other polls have not detected this rise.

this is how we teach science?

take a poll?

we could have taken a poll awhile back
and not wasted so much time with civil rights

a majority, probably more than 55%, would have been comfortable with segregation
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 01:21 PM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:51 AM
Quote:
Why God's in a class by himself

By Michael Shermer

MICHAEL SHERMER is the author of "The Science of Good & Evil" and "Science Friction" (Henry Holt/Times Books).

August 7, 2005

INTELLIGENT DESIGN creationism resurfaced in the news last week after President Bush's remarks were (mis)taken by IDers to be a solid endorsement for the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms. (Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, said that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept.")

One magazine reporter asked for my opinion about whether one can believe in God and the theory of evolution.

I replied that, empirically speaking, yes, you can — the proof being that 40% of American scientists profess a belief in God and also accept the theory of evolution, not to mention that most of the world's 1 billion Catholics believe in God and accept the theory of evolution. But then this reporter wanted to know if it is logically consistent to believe in God and the theory of evolution. That is, does the theory of evolution — if carried out to its logical conclusion — preclude belief in God? This is a different question. Here is my answer.

You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence.

This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature — the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever — if your answer is "God did it," a scientist will ask: "How did God do it? What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?" and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief.

One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: Which laws and forces were used to create specific natural phenomena? How did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God's recipe for, say, gravity or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient being?

Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science, and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

Bottom line: Teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 01:34 PM   #171
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 03:51 PM
But is George Bush himself not proof that both theories are wrong? I mean, nothing or noone with a bit of intellegence would design THAT now would it. And I can not imagine what he would evolve out of either..

Sorry. I'll get me coat
__________________
s_tielemans is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 02:44 AM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by s_tielemans
But is George Bush himself not proof that both theories are wrong? I mean, nothing or noone with a bit of intellegence would design THAT now would it. And I can not imagine what he would evolve out of either..

Sorry. I'll get me coat

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 04:42 AM   #173
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 01:51 AM
So if there was a theory (which we all know is christian backed) that said 1 + 1 = 3 then should that be teached along side the 1 + 1 = 2 theory?

Because after all how do we know 1 +1 = 2? we were just TOLD this you know?

Once again i am on my knees thanking my lucky stars i am not an american citizen! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 09:53 AM   #174
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Australia got all the convicts and America got all the religious fanatics.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:23 AM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:51 AM
Quote:
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Advertisement

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:26 AM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:51 AM
I think it's a spoof. Right?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:28 AM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:51 PM
It is a spoof it is from the Onion.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:30 AM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Sigh of relief. I'm never quire sure any more.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:30 AM   #179
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:51 AM
is it less valid
than ID?

similar reasoningAbove: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 06:12 PM   #180
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 02:51 PM
The theory of ID is so absurd that, if i didn't see this article in the Onion first, I probably wouldnt have thought it was fake
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com