It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kansas evolution vote nears, scientists fight back

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Zip -- As I said, if people want to teach their kids evolution in their own schools, that's their business. Just don't make me pay for it. I am a Christian, and I don't believe atoms have godlike properties, don't believe they are self-existant, don't believe they can create planets and stars and all the living beings.

I worship God, not the atom.

I do not believe we are animals who evolved up from the slime, just an accident, and since we're just animals we might as well act like animals.

People want to teach their kids that kind of stuff? I think it's child abuse myself, but who am I to tell someone what they can and can't teach their own children? I might tell them what I think but ultimately they have the right to make that decision.

Just don't make me pay for it. We have a first Amendment that's supposed to protect us from that kind of abomination.




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Is very laughable to see the creationist religious pushers trying to undermine people’s intelligent with linking Darwinism with the missing link and our Relationship to monkeys.

It shows also the lack of respect for peoples intelligence and reasoning, common sense and reading facts is all needed to understand what Darwin was all about.



At the new "Explore Evolution" museum exhibit in Kansas, visitors pass a banner showing the face of a girl next to the face of a chimpanzee for a lesson on how the two are "cousins in life's family tree."


I wonder as who the humans are and who is the ones playing monkey with something that obviously they care not to understand but rather mislead people into their own assumptions of what the whole evolution theory is all about.

Religion and creationism is base on faith, while evolution is base of fact and that is the truth.

But occurs we will always have people like Resistance to put up the fight for the higher cause.

Pity.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Untrue. Intelligent design does not reject the idea that there are created kinds.

I beleive that dembski and behe do no??


, it doesn't state anything about God intervening. You know this is untrue, Nygdan.

Actually yes, you're right, they maintain that its an 'intelligent designer', however, if we are talking about abiogenesis, then this requires that it be a diety no? If the intelligent designer isn't a complex living thing, then it must be a god or supernatural being no?


The perspective of particular IDTist's is not necessarily that of all IDTist... much like Evolutionary theorists... ie: was archaeopteryx a bird or protobird

Good point, but I think that most people over at the Discovery Institute don't advocate the creation of kinds and support the evolution of man from lower primates no?

Welcome back btw!



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I worship God, not the atom.

Really? Cause the rest of us worship the atom, and its triune parts, the Holy Neutron, The Resurrected Electron, and the primal positive godhead of the Proton. We all sacrifice virgins to it on big bronze statues of Moloch while dancing around singing paens to the demi-god Darwin and his magical pitbull Huxely.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Fine, they can vote on this...

Now, let's vote on wether or not Joh Glenn is male or female.

100,230 votes female
92,001 votes male

I guess John Glenn is female because we voted and said he was female.

Now for Paris Hilton

100,000 Not Hot

250,000,000 Hot

I guess she is hot because it was voted on and said she was hot.(SHe isn't, but hey, people voted and said she was so they must be right)



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I beleive that dembski and behe do no??

Behe for sure, admits the possibility that apes and man share a common ancestor. Dembski... I'm not too sure about, he could believe that... Now that you mention it, I can't say I've ever heard his perspective on this for sure.

Rren?



Actually yes, you're right, they maintain that its an 'intelligent designer', however, if we are talking about abiogenesis, then this requires that it be a diety no? If the intelligent designer isn't a complex living thing, then it must be a god or supernatural being no?

I halfway agree with you... certainly the latter half of your statement is true re: complex living things. However there is no absolute requirement that the IDer be supernatural. It could be a complex living organism... certainly all the ATSer's who think we were created by aliens are ID proponents - whether they know it or not. But I am missing the connection with abiogenesis and supernatural IDers. Can you elaborate.



Good point, but I think that most people over at the Discovery Institute don't advocate the creation of kinds and support the evolution of man from lower primates no?

You know... again, I am not sure. In fact, I am unfamiliar with many of their 'fellows' at all. I don't think that Johnathan Wells holds this position. To be completely honest with you, I would imagine the official position of the CSC is one like you describe. It would certainly help distance them from the creationists a little bit.



Welcome back btw!

Thanks... hope to be around more or less permanently... had some real life things keeping me on the lurk.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   


You have voted Charlie Murphy for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




Amen brother...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by mattison0922

Behe for sure, admits the possibility that apes and man share a common ancestor. Dembski... I'm not too sure about, he could believe that... Now that you mention it, I can't say I've ever heard his perspective on this for sure.

Rren?




I do know that Dembski is a Christian and i'm not 100% sure but i don't believe he thinks that man and ape share a common ancestor. I think he's believe's in a kind barrier...but to be honest i'm not sure and can't seem to find where i read that right now.

Here's some of his views on ID "-vs-" evolution....which should truly read ID -vs- naturallistic origins, but for some reason nobody seems to get that.


Source

First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not, as Eugenie Scott falsely asserts, claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation. A doctrine of creation presupposes not only a designer that in some manner is responsible for organizing the structure of the universe and its various parts, but also a creator who is the source of being of the universe. A doctrine of creation thus invariably entails metaphysical and theological claims about a creator and the creation Intelligent design, on the other hand, merely concerns itself with features of natural objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligence, whatever that intelligence might be.



Here's a good link i read some time ago. Reflections on Human Origins (.pdf) William A. Dembski

that explicitly rules out intelligence. In other words,
evolution by intelligent design is not typically what is meant by evolution.
Nevertheless, once intelligence is permitted a role in the modifications
responsible for humans, it becomes an open question whether humans are
both modified monkeys and modified dirt or merely modified dirt. We can
ask the same sort of question about an archeological artifact. For instance,
is an engraved metal bowl the result of reworking an existing bowl or was
it made from scratch by first casting liquid metal in a mold?
There may be good reasons for thinking that humans are redesigned
monkeys. Even so, a design-theoretic perspective does not require that
novel designs must invariably result from modifying existing designs.
Hence, there may also be good reasons for thinking that a redesign process
didn’t produce humans and that, instead, humans were built them from the
ground up (pun intended). Design theorists have yet to reach a consensus
on these matters. Nevertheless, they have reached a consensus about the
indispensability of intelligence in human origins. In particular, they argue
that an evolutionary process unguided by intelligence cannot adequately
account for the remarkable intellectual gifts of a William James Sidis or
the remarkable moral goodness of a Mother Teresa.


Here's a list of Dembski's papers, includes his expert witness testimony in the Dover ID case for those of you who seem to be following the debate. I say seem because most of the posters here who oppose ID don't seem to know what the debate is actually about and what it is not. This page will get you more familiar with what IDT actually proposes. www.designinference.com...

Nygdan Not sure if you've noticed it but mattison put up a good post in my testing IDT thread. No religion, no philosophy, no politics. You guys are both out of my league when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the arguments. But it seems odd that with all the vocal opponents of ID around here, very very few ever respond to actual ID theories. But if i post a ID sucks: those silly creationists are at it again thread, all you guys come out in droves to rail against it. I'm not going to pretend to be wholly objective either, but why not debate the real ID instead of it's philosophical stealth-creationist counterpart fabricated by opponents as a strategy to discredit ID. Surely if it's bunkum you guys can shred the science (not the philosophy) and get back to rippin' on the young-Earther's in no time.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
On dieties and abiogenesis:

IDists usually postulate that life itself is irreducibly complex, and to therefore have required an intelligent designer. This means that any one planet 's life could've been formed by god, shiva, super-humans, aliens, etc, but it does mean that somewhere somthing had to be the first intelligently created lifeform, and that therefore its intelligent designer must've not been alive nor subject to other natural laws laws such as the ones that restrict complex intelligent things from forming naturally, ie a super-natural being. So, and this is somewhat similar to some ideas on panspermia, ID saying the Intelligent Designer isn't necessarily a god is true as long as we just 'move back' the problem.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
On dieties and abiogenesis:

IDists usually postulate that life itself is irreducibly complex, and to therefore have required an intelligent designer. This means that any one planet 's life could've been formed by god, shiva, super-humans, aliens, etc, but it does mean that somewhere somthing had to be the first intelligently created lifeform, and that therefore its intelligent designer must've not been alive nor subject to other natural laws laws such as the ones that restrict complex intelligent things from forming naturally, ie a super-natural being. So, and this is somewhat similar to some ideas on panspermia, ID saying the Intelligent Designer isn't necessarily a god is true as long as we just 'move back' the problem.


Honestly, I hadn't considered this point to this depth. Without getting too philisophical, your assertion seems basically correct. If life is ultimately IC, then irrespective of who/what designed this biosphere, a supernatural designer would be required at some point. Hmmmm.... this is my complaint with panspermia or other 'planet seeding' theories... they really just remove the issue and don't address it. An interesting point indeed.

Though, I don't think it particularly damaging to the philosophy of ID... certainly IDT accounts for the supernatural creator... but it does speak against my continued assertions that the IDer need not be supernatural.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
You guys are both out of my league when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the arguments.

Ha, and mattison is far out of my league too! And you hardly give yourself enough credit there.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The problem with ID is that When it comes to the deity of Higher intelligence is occurs God as per bible believe.

But what many fail to see is the fact that assuming an Intelligent being aliens and any other deity or deities fit the rank.

So if schools are to teach ID what deity or extraterrestrial subject would be included?

See, the only reason for having ID in schools is to bring Christianity to the classroom.

Kind of misleading here one believe one God not discussions because the prof is in the bible itself.

I believe that the best place for that is the church.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So if schools are to teach ID what deity or extraterrestrial subject would be included?

Irrelevant and misses the point entirely. Do we make the same demands of the SETI project, which is for all intents and purposes an "ID" project. SETI is under no obligation to reveal the source of intelligent communication. Why is ID?


See, the only reason for having ID in schools is to bring Christianity to the classroom.

Baloney. I am not a Christian, yet I support IDTists.


Kind of misleading here one believe one God not discussions because the prof is in the bible itself.


What?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ha, and mattison is far out of my league too! And you hardly give yourself enough credit there.


How about we all just agree that each has something to offer, and we can all learn from each other.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
First off all, it seems that you are forgetting that either extraterrestrial intelligence or the believe in deities beside God is not what is wanted when it comes to bringing ID to schools.

The purpose of ID is to offer different approach to Creationism that will get a better support for the ones that are still Christians but doubt the Creation myth time line as bible believe.

Still advocates for the ID has not been able to produced a scientific evidence for their theory as evolution does.

The roots of intelligent design are still link to creationism and the Genesis inspired Noah’s flood myth, not matter how 20th century they want to make it look.

ID is nothing more than creationism in disguised with a more modern packaging. Teaching children in school that anything that science can not prove ID can.

Bolony.

BTW what seti has to do with all this?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by resistance
I worship God, not the atom.

Really? Cause the rest of us worship the atom, and its triune parts, the Holy Neutron, The Resurrected Electron, and the primal positive godhead of the Proton. We all sacrifice virgins to it on big bronze statues of Moloch while dancing around singing paens to the demi-god Darwin and his magical pitbull Huxely.



But we fear the demon named "Maxwell!"




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
First off all, it seems that you are forgetting that either extraterrestrial intelligence or the believe in deities beside God is not what is wanted when it comes to bringing ID to schools.

You are halfway correct. The identity of the designer is not a component of ID. It doesn't have anything to do with public schools though. Marg how much IDT have you read? Not rebuttals, how many books, articles, etc. actually written by an IDTist have you read?


The purpose of ID is to offer different approach to Creationism that will get a better support for the ones that are still Christians but doubt the Creation myth time line as bible believe.

Still advocates for the ID has not been able to produced a scientific evidence for their theory as evolution does.

The roots of intelligent design are still link to creationism and the Genesis inspired Noah’s flood myth, not matter how 20th century they want to make it look.

Well there's a different perspective for you. What - did you read an article in People this morning? Marg simply joining a thread and rehashing your local columnists perspective on ID could hardly be called discussion. You never answered my question from before. I am not a Christian, I am a scientist (yes 'peer reviewed'), yet I support ID how can this be?

ID has nothing to do with Noah's flood myth. Of course if you'd bothered to read a single piece of ID, or even bothered to read the whopping 2 pages that constitute this thread you'd realize this.


ID is nothing more than creationism in disguised with a more modern packaging. Teaching children in school that anything that science can not prove ID can.

Another astonishing fact filled revelation from an authoritative source.



BTW what seti has to do with all this?

Again, if you'd bothered to read any literature, or even the thread you might understand this. Briefly: SETI is and ID project. Like it or not it is. What does SETI do? It looks for signals from outer space that are derived from an intelligent source. It specifically looks for patterns, etc. that are to complex to have been produced naturally. SETI is considered to be scientific. SETI is in no position to yield information about the designer of the signal. SETI scientists detect the product of intelligence without knowing anything about the designer. SETI can't yield information about the designer, save for the designer actually enclosing it.... See the Point SETI = Scientific = no info about designer. Yet ID = Unscientific = no info about designer. Why not? Could it be because it's distasteful to you and your metaphysical presuppositions? If not perhaps you can elaborate.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Well you interpretation of what ID is going to Offer in schools is ever allowed is very different from what the proponents of it wants, taking in consideration that ID supporters that want the ID in schools are more in the Christian agenda than scientific agenda, I wonder how a scientist as yourself is involve with religious groups.

Being a teacher I most said that I know exactly what is behind the idea of bringing ID to schools at least in my very predominant bible belt neck of the woods.

Now as for the ID itself do you have any nice research on this theory and facts that has been prove?

Can it challenge evolution as a factual subject?

For what I have been able to dig out it does not, and more often is just an alternative to justify what scientific research can not prove.

For what I have research and is not in favor of one particular side I still to find any prof at all.

Do you care to enlighten my intellect? or I am to mentally challenged for that.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
For what I know about ID is that is a version of creationism, and that the idea began after the courts struck down creationism in schools in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987.

But the idea of ID can be traced to Socrates and Plato, and it was an alternative to the used of the word evolution 1897.

With the new discoveries on sciences like physics, astronomy, theories, biochemistry, genetics, and others all of them contributing to the new design theory.

We as human beings even scientist are bound to see that many things can never been explain through experiment, so is always the alternative of something that is there but can no be explain at least with modern technology, so the ID may sound good at the time.

But what scientist see as just a steeping stone to research and experiment is for the advocates to Creationism just the right tool to cover up their pursue of pushing the creation myth and Christianity in the schools.

Perhaps you are following a better path to the explanation of what science can not explain with ID but is plenty of creationist pusher that are using it for their goals.




[edit on 8-11-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well you interpretation of what ID is going to Offer in schools is ever allowed is very different from what the proponents of it wants, taking in consideration that ID supporters that want the ID in schools are more in the Christian agenda than scientific agenda, I wonder how a scientist as yourself is involve with religious groups.

And your perception of what ID supporters in public schools ultimate motives are is based on....

But actually, you could be correct though... I don't really pay too much attention to the debate with respect to public school.

Personally, I am not involved with any religious groups... got one hell of a collection of Chick Tracts though, but that's more of a morbid fascination than it is a basis for any belief, at least as far as I am concerned.


Being a teacher I most said that I know exactly what is behind the idea of bringing ID to schools at least in my very predominant bible belt neck of the woods.

And this is where (roughly)? I live in the Bible Belt as well... NC... hell, I drive down the frickin' Billy Graham Parkway on practically a daily basis. There's no push to brind ID here. Where specifically are these creationists trying to bring ID into your school system?


Now as for the ID itself do you have any nice research on this theory and facts that has been prove?

Can it challenge evolution as a factual subject?

For what I have been able to dig out it does not, and more often is just an alternative to justify what scientific research can not prove.

For what I have research and is not in favor of one particular side I still to find any prof at all.

As far as personal research re: ID theory... I'll address presently. However your statement re: evolution as a factual subject pretty much demonstrates your dogmatic belief in a series of retrodictions, assumptions, and unprovable explanations of scientific data pretty much answers my question about whether or not you've ever read any IDT or ever will read any. The answer is a resounding no because, you'd rather stick with what makes you comfortable. Are you a science teacher? Care to discuss the examples used to support evolution in your texts? We can get into the Haeckel's forged embryo pics, staged peppered moth pics, and evolution and subsequent de-evolution of Darwin's Finches if you'd like.

I would imagine that your "research" on the topic amounts to what you've read here in ATS, what you've read in your local paper, and maybe.... maybe a visit to the NCSE's website.


Do you care to enlighten my intellect? or I am to mentally challenged for that.

As far as personal research and ID. I wouldn't say that my work is based in ID. Most IDTist's however have based their assumptions off of existing scientific data. Personally though, my doctoral research was concerned with the mechanism of ATP Synthase, a universal biological rotary motor enzyme. This enzyme in fact functions in a manner similar to a hydroelectric dam. The enzyme has a minimum of 20 different components, controlled by the differential expression of nine different genes, which are often located on two different chromosomes. Furthermore the enzyme has a very specific location that it must reside in within it's membrane. Finally, the enzyme is completely pointless without the other 4 or 5 protein COMPLEXES that generate it's energy source. Not only is this enzyme ubiquitous, it's pretty much necessary for life... that is ALL Known life. So I have a reasonable understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity, as described by Behe. Before I got my Ph.D. I was in fact a Darwinist... I am interested in IDt as a result of gaining knowledge about origins theories and NDT in general, not for a lack of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join