http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/subject.asp?Cat2=262

Oh no. Oh no, oh no, oh no.

No, no, no.

I expect GWB would approve.

LOL..."I approve this message"

Oh no. Oh no, oh no, oh no.

No, no, no.

I expect GWB would approve.

?

Well, at least the scientific references are freakin' impeccable:

References:

The Guinness Book of World Records, 1998 Edition.

King James Bible

Giants, Rizzoli Publication.

C. L. Burdick, "The Naturalist," Vol. 16, Spring 1957.

Signs of the Times, July 22, 1950.

John C. Whitcomb & Henry H. Morris, The Genesis Flood

[My buddy Steve from Across the Street.]

[Grampa.]

:roll:

I like this one:

"The word dinosaur is a Greek word meaning "terrible lizard." A dinosaur is simply a giant lizard. They were created in the same six days God created all things and they were contemporary to man."

And this: "Consider the present day Chinese Iguana that grows as large as 12 feet long. Suppose before the flood, in a near perfect environment, he lives 13 times longer and because he never stops growing gets 13 times bigger. That Chinese Iguana would be 156 feet long and about three stories tall. "

So just Remember: "GOD SAID He created all life 6,000-plus years ago and that there were dinosaur-like creatures on the earth.

MAN SAID, foolishness; the dinosaur is over 200 million years old.

Now you have THE RECORD."

And pray you never meet one of those 12-foot Chinese iguanas, or their 6,000 year-old 156-foot mommas ready to kick your blasphemous Darwinist Satan-lovin' butt!

Not quite relevant, but close. Did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Why so caustic about the evolution vs. creation debate?

Why so caustic about the evolution vs. creation debate?


what debate????
This is what we are faced with:
http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

I'd heard something in passing about this but I thought it was a joke! Are these people for real?????

No, the Onion just points out the fallacies going on in everyday society in a rather ironic way...no worries !

Uh, yeah. The person Sorceress heard it from in passing was me. I thought I'd mentioned that it was an Onion article... :mrgreen:

Frankly, as a Cthulhist, I find all of this - from both sides - laughable. Anyone who wants the actual history of all life on Earth needs to return to the sacred documents: "At the Mountains of Madness" and "The Shadow Out of Time" by Howard Phillips Lovecraft.

I like to call it "Insane Design".

:cthulhu:

... I'm so lost. (this is fairly usual). What the heck are we arguing? All I know is that as a chritian I hold to the creation beleif, whatever it may be (7 days or millions of years) and I know that evolution exists because we can see it in every day life. Between the two there must be a happy medium. As for the onion guys... doi, gives christians a bad name. I like the theory of gravity personally... but that's just me. And as a non-Cthulhist, WHAT THE HECK IS A Cthulhist? I like the sounds of this insane design, it sounds chaotic!!!!!! Did I cover everything mentioned, or am I just totally off topic?

That "Intelligent Falling" guy is a prof. at Oral Roberts University.

"Oral Roberts University is a strange place."

GPO87, I don't think anyone here is really arguing. We are just enjoying a good-hearted laugh at an evangelicist christian's dogmatic beliefs. However, like others have pointed out, it doesn't really matter. Believe what you want. Maybe desire is the route of all evil, or the spirits of our ancestors protect us on a daily basis, or even that Mary immaculately concieved the son of god who was later nailed to a couple planks of wood. It doesn't really matter to Cthulhu.... those of us that displease him the least can only look forward to having our souls consumed at a later date (later than you who don't offer him your service freely, that is.)

Here's a rather nice opinion on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152374.stm

Hello All,

A majority of Americans already believe in Creationist doctrine, despite having been exposed to evolutionary theory in our public schools. Clearly, Darwin has not corrupted anyone against their will or subverted religious beliefs inculcated outside the classroom. Why then this current push to get Creationism onto the curriculum? Simple, really: the believers want more believers. They aren't called evangelists for nothing, you know.

I, for one, am looking forward to physics being taught alongside magic. Fair is fair.

Cheers,
Clem

I, for one, am looking forward to physics being taught alongside magic.

Maybe Intelligent Design will be on the Hogwarts curriculum for the next book?

Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Theory.

Sorry.

The BBC piece was a thoughtful and well written summary of the questions and problems we Americans must deal with. Personally, I can't understand how anyone can believe in creationism, no matter what new name they give it, but millions of Americans do. A friend has a brother with a masters in geophysics who is an avowed creationist. He uses his scientific credentials to write articles for creationist publications. His convoluted explanations for the existence of fossils are utterly ludicrous, but for people who already believe that the earth is only 7000 years old or so, he is apparently totally convincing. At any rate, he says what they want to hear. What is frightening is when schools are forced to teach theories that are the antithesis of all reason, and against all we have learned from science. Even though most of us will never witness the birth of a new species through evolution, we can and do witness evolution everyday. Bacteria and viruses mutate constantly, creating new versions of themselves in order to meet and overcome the threat to their existance. What is that if not evolution? There are insects and plants that mutate to become more able to deal with their changing environments. That too is evolution. It may not -yet- be a new species, but the changes that it has made to survive are just like what has been happening over the millenia. Given enough time entirely new species may yet appear from those first steps. Or maybe not, because while some mutations are successful, others fail and eventually the species disappears. One way to diffuse controvery is to say, as a theology professor I knew did, " The Bible teaches Who, science teaches how." And that might work for people of faith, but not every one is. There is a great deal of proof for evolution, circumstantial, true, but that's accepted in any court of law, but as far as I can see, not a shred of proof for creationism. It truly frightens me to think that the schools might be forced to teach as science something for which the only "proof" are the writings in a book which is the result of people writing down the tales told around campfires thousands of years ago, It would make just as much sense to accept the Navajo version of creation, or the Mayan, where Ixchel sits at her loom and weaves the fabric of the world and all that dwells in it. As a weaver, I kind of like that one. It too is the result of ancient people telling stories around a campfire. If one is considered to be a myth, then the other should be treated the same way. One person's myth is another person's religion. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Sorseress, amen, sister.

Excellent post there, Sorseress. I'm with you 100%.

I love it !!! They should be required to teach all of the creation theories...Abo, Inuit, Hopi, etc...
Just think, a high school that takes 7 years to graduate from ! Hey, isn't that how long it takes to get out of Hogwart's ????? Hmmm. Thought that place seemed too sinister.

Cthulhu eats saved souls too, remember.

greg

Well said, Sorseress. Creationism is a faith, not a science; therefore, it should not be taught in public schools. While "Intelligent Falling" may be unintelligent, not every Creationist wants to be associated with one who disregards the laws of physics in the name of God.

Opiate of the people? Most of us are drug-free. :grin:

Note: "most of us"

hehehehehehe.... :lol:

What disturbs me the most about I.D. and creationism is the complete adherence to cultural relativism.

Both these "guesses" (They are not 'theories' in the true, empiracle scientific sense) are based on the idea that because there is something we don't know, then it must be supernatural in origin.

Basicially, we're the almighty human race, and we are the pinnacle of creation, so if its something we don't know, then it is something way out of our reach. The proponents of both of the aforementioned theories believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the truth, that their view on the reality is what deflines it. The arrogance of our collective race is astounding at times.

Evolution is most likely true. It is an atheistic theory, but not antitheistic. Being a science, it cannot delve into the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Therefore, it exists independently of a creator. ID and Creationism are so interwoven with the concept of a creator that their alternative hypotheses must be that their creator does not exist. This is an equally arrogant notion for any theory even claiming to be scientific for reasons mentioned above. That is what I like about faith - its a personal choice, not something to be proven.

So how are ID and Creationism based in cultural relativism? One states that direct interpretation of the Bible, itself copied and interpreted for centuries into historical and cultural vernacular, is the physical, empiracal truth. This assumption is based soley on a cultural dogma. The other states that, because biological processes are interpreted by some people as "too complex", then some guiding force must be involved. This assumption is based on our technology and scientific level, while which may be advanced still have a long way to go before such blanket statements may be made.

Enough of the Homo sapiens phallus waving. Challenge evolution if we must - no scientific theory should ever become dogma - but let's keep the challenge scientific, and don't let these guys, Ph.D's or otherwise, insult our intelliegence.

I always enjoy debates on this topic. Important to keep it fun, i think.

Thought i'd drop this into the discussion: http://www.venganza.org/

Please note the similarity to an octopus. Coincidence?

Nik

A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians

i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians


Nope, only squids.

Phil, "Half-Baked Theory"?! "Half-Baked Hypothesis" would be exceedingly generous.

I liked this article (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2958166).

Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.

"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."

Phil, "Half-Baked Theory"?! "Half-Baked Hypothesis" would be exceedingly generous.

I liked this article (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2958166).

I like that article too. It sould be required reading for school administrators (and school boards) everywhere.

Thank God no one here in my local school district in California has tried to put the creation myth in the schools!

i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians

THAT'S AWSOME, hat's off to your wit!

A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity

... I only thought there were three parts to christianity... maybe I need to hit the books again, (it's been a long time since I even opened a bible!) Wonder what 8 parts she was talking about...?

Nik, thank you very much for the link. It made my night.

A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

Uh, okay... I do remember an "eight-fold path" in Bhudism, but not in Christianity. I would love it if God appeared to the world as an octo.... :angelpus:

A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

Uh, okay... I do remember an "eight-fold path" in Bhudism, but not in Christianity.

I would love it if God appeared to the world as an octo.... :angelpus: Though I would think that the fate he/she would meet would be even nastier than crucifixion... :sushi:

Sushi (non deity, please) and Sake, all

John

Thought this was interesting....in a head shaking, eye rolling sort of way.

http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=Cabazon+Dinny&target=article :roll:

Thanks for that link, Sorseress. Highly entertaining in a slightly-disturbing sort of way.

I love this quote, it justs beggers the question 'Why?'

...Project Creation in Mount Juliet, Tenn., who would need to raise about $1 million to assemble 30 to 50 pterodactyl and brachiosaur replicas to mingle with live chickens and goats.

I prefer not to get involved in "religion arguments", but I figure I might say something about my views on science vs. religion.

Firstly, look above:"I prefer not to get involved in 'religion arguments' ". Why? Simple. RELIGION is a FAITH.
FAITH as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Faith Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Observe number 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

You see? ILLOGICAL BELIEF. You cannot win an argument as, by its very definition, RELIGION does not care whether there is evidence against or for it. Example: I have FAITH in you", is the statement of having an irrational belief of the capabilities of an individual.

Secondly, FAITH/RELIGION is not a SCIENCE. SCIENCE (#

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.)

is very different from RELIGION. SCIENCE, by ITS very definition RESTS SQUARELEY UPON THE FOUNDATION OF EVIDENCE!


Just my 2 cents.

Gabe

and a well written, and well thought out 2 cents it was ! Kudos !

:heee: Thanks! ...
...
..
BTW, (I've been burning to ask this!) what's a kudo? :oops:

There is no 'kudo', actually. Kudos (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kudos), Greek for 'magical glory', is not plural.

:grad:

<---- Dork.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.


Anyone else see the subtle bias there? "Christianity" = "virtue"; "dogma" = "Muslim faith". Sheesh. :roll:

Anyone else see the subtle bias there? "Christianity" = "virtue"; "dogma" = "Muslim faith". Sheesh. :roll:

:shock: ...I missed that.

There is no 'kudo', actually. Kudos, Greek for 'magical glory', is not plural.



<---- Dork.
... :oops:

Yep, heh heh. I'll bet that's an older dictionary, though.

A Native American friend of mine was discussing the merits of a book that went into a lot of detail about the beliefs of various tribes. Her comment was that it was a very good book, extremely well researched, and very respectful, except for one thing. The title was "Native American Mythology". She said she was inclined to to write a book about Judaism, Christianity and Islam and entitle it: The Mythologies of the Peoples of the Middle East". It's a very good and very valid point.
Sharon

No need to be embarassed up there, Cephkid, the arrow next to "dork" is pointed back at Um...!

On another note - I LOVE Dinny and Mr. Rex! They're one of our best near-local examples of classic Route 66 roadside attraction kitsch! Whenever we come back from Palm Springs or Arizona, we have always made a point of stopping by the dinosaurs! This time, returning from finally meeting Greg and Shanlyn in early May, we noticed that something was different about the place...

:sad: :roll: :mad:

What happened?

What happened?

"the wind began to swish, the trailer...to unhitch, then suddenly on her broomstick ,went by the wicked witch"

What happened?

It has gone from being a loveably dopey way-too-big dinosaur display with a fossil giftshop inside the apatosaur to being a Creationist attraction. Check out the link from the LA Times Sorceress posted above.

I'm a nut about American oddities - particularly the roadside attraction variety. I like eccentric landmarks - it's sacred history to me!

Can't some things be left well-enough alone?

A totally different example: there used to be this roadside attraction outside Redlands, CA called "Bible Land: Sculpted in Sand" that an old guy had built over years on his land. Looked just like a set from The Flinstones. This was one person's oddball labor of love. Now? Mobile home park. Is this what awaits my proposed "Cthulhuland" gas/giftshop/play park out in the desert? :sad:

Has anyone out there read the book "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman ???? It answers sooooo many questions.

No need to be embarassed up there, Cephkid, the arrow next to "dork" is pointed back at Um...!

:shock:

Yeah, Cephkid. Or were you being embarassed for me? Because I can handle that just fine on my own, thankyouverymuch.

:oops:

":oops:" for two reasons:
a) I have been trying to learn latin and greek for marine biology puposes, therefore, I would expect to have learned the answer myself already, as it is greek.
b) Not only "a)", but until recently, I was FIRMLY convinced that "kudos" "were"(was, as it is singular) some kind of...of...exotic food... :oops: :oops: :oops:

Kudos (http://www.rockofagescandy.com/HTFCandyBars/Products/Kudos.html)

:bonk: Now I'm all confused!

Sorry about posting the entire article. I couldn't access the original because I'm not a paid subscriber to the publication. It's too long for one post

Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum
By Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazen and James Trefil
The Chronicle of Higher Eduction

02 September 2005 Issue

Volume 52, Issue 2, Page B6

Scientists who teach evolution sometimes feel as if they are trapped in an old horror film - the kind where the monster is killed repeatedly, only to come to life in a nastier form each time. Since the Scopes trial in 1925, the battle between scientists who want to teach mainstream biology in American public schools, and creationists who want to promulgate a more religious view, has gone through several cycles.

In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education in 1982, a federal court ruled that the introduction of creationism into public-school curricula constituted the establishment of religion, and hence was expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. That decision dealt a serious (though by no means fatal) blow to old-line creationism and its close cousin, so-called creation science. But another variant of creationism, so-called intelligent design, has cropped up. At least 19 states are now debating its use in public education, and President Bush commented in August that he thought both evolution and intelligent design "ought to be properly taught."

Many people fail to understand the subtle but important differences between the new and old forms of creationism, and the different debates those approaches engender. Like the French generals who used tactics from World War I to face the Nazis in 1939, some educators seem intent on fighting the last war.

A word about the authors of this essay: Although our areas of expertise differ, all of us have investigated aspects of life's origin and evolution. In addition, our political views span the spectrum from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican. Thus the essay does not represent any particular ideological or disciplinary viewpoint. We are united in our concern that the science curriculum, from kindergarten through university, should reflect the best and most up-to-date scholarship.

Consider, then, several different theories of life's origin and evolution. The main theories are those of miraculous creation and of sequential origins. Within the theories of sequential origins are the theories of intelligent design and of emergent complexity, and the latter can in turn be divided into the theories of frozen accident and of deterministic origins. The debate surrounding each pair focuses on a different aspect of the nature of science.

Miraculous creation versus sequential origins. Was the origin of life a miracle, or did it conform to natural law - and how can we tell? Many different versions of the doctrine of miraculous creation exist, but the one that is most at odds with modern science is called "young Earth creationism" and is based on a literal reading of the Bible. According to the supporters of that theory, our planet and its life-forms were created more or less in their present forms in a miraculous act about 10,000 years ago.

Young Earth creationism is in direct conflict with scientific measurements of the age of rocks, the thickness of polar ice sheets, the expansion of the universe, and numerous other indicators of our planet's great antiquity.

One unusual solution to that disparity was proposed in a book by Philip Gosse, called Omphalos, which was published two years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The word "omphalos" means navel in Greek, and Gosse argued that Adam was created with a navel, even though he had never been inside a womb. From that insight has flowed the so-called doctrine of created antiquity (Gosse actually called it Pre-Chronism), which states that although Earth was created 10,000 years ago, it was created to look as if it were much older. Are some stars more than 10,000 light-years away? The universe was created with light from those stars already on its way to Earth. And what about those apparently ancient rocks? The universe was created with just the right mixtures of potassium-40 and argon to make the rocks appear much older than they really are.

It is impossible to conceive of any experiment or observation that could prove the doctrine of created antiquity wrong. Any result, no matter what it was, could be explained by saying "the universe was just created that way."

In fact, that property of young Earth creationism proved to be its Achilles' heel. Every scientific theory must be testable by observation or experiment - or it cannot be considered science. In principle, it must be possible to imagine outcomes that would prove the theory wrong. In the words of Karl Popper, scientific theories must be falsifiable, even if they are not false. Popper said that a theory that cannot be overturned by experimental data is not a part of experimental science.

Created antiquity is not falsifiable. The teaching of young Earth creationism, along with any other doctrine based on a miraculous creation of life, was prohibited in public schools not because the theory was proved wrong but because it simply is not science. It is, as the court in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education recognized, a religious doctrine, untestable by the techniques of science.

Once we discard the theories of miraculous creation, we are left with the theories of sequential origins.

Kudos, eh? I stand corrected.

Here's an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html) from the NYT about the investigation of scientific literacy in America. My expectations are pretty low, but I was still surprised to learn that, allegedly:

American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

Especially that last part. Maybe people should be forced to pass a test before anyone listens to their opinion on what should and should not be taught in science class. If fewer than 1/3 can identify DNA as a key to heredity, how in the name of :cthulhu: can anyone seriously suggest that democracy should dictate the validity of evolution? Cripes.

There's also this:

...Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).

OK, I can sympathise a little with the first position. I don't see life changing too fast, but I do understand that it can be hard to keep up with the pace of scientific discovery and speculation. But that second part drives me nuts, especially since the first quote implies that fewer than 50% of Americans are even qualified to answer that question. Did faith make America great? I'm pretty sure that, when push came to shove, we turned to science to produce electricity, build automobiles, purify drinking water, treat sewage, increase agricultural yields, win WWII, and broadcast NFL games and evangelicals into our living rooms on Sundays. Does faith alone really make anyone's life better, or does it just make misery more comfortable?

:thumbsup: Excellent post sorseress!

And Excellent point Um...! (I knew there was a kudo...though I have to admit, I though it was a asian roll....)

Intelligent design versus emergent complexity. The theory of intelligent design, or ID, is a theory of sequential origins, but it is also the latest attack on the idea that the origin and evolution of life follow natural laws. Like created antiquity, ID has a long intellectual pedigree. The English philosopher William Paley first espoused it in 1802, arguing that if you found a watch in a field, you would conclude that it had been designed by some intelligence rather than assembled by chance. In the same way, the argument goes, the intricate universe in which we live reflects the mind of an intelligent maker.

The modern theory of intelligent design is more sophisticated than Paley's argument, although it derives from much the same kind of reasoning. It is anchored in a concept called "irreducible complexity" - the idea that organisms possess many complicated structures, which are essential to the organism's survival but which are useless unless all the structures are present. The chance of Darwinian evolution's producing so many such structures and of their existing simultaneously, according to the theory, is so small that they must have been produced by an intelligent designer.

Intelligent design challenges the conventional wisdom in origin-of-life research that life is a prime example of so-called emergent complexity. All around us are complex systems that arise when energy flows through a collection of particles, like living cells or grains of sand. Ant colonies, slime molds, sand dunes, spiral galaxies, traffic jams, and human consciousness are examples of such systems. Although scientists have yet to produce a living system in the laboratory, most origin-of-life researchers are optimistic that one day we will be able to do so, or at least to understand how life first emerged from inorganic materials.

The supporters of intelligent design resort to the same kind of argument that creationists have used for decades, identifying some biological structure and claiming that it is irreducibly complex. Then supporters of emergent complexity have to analyze that structure and show that its complexity arises naturally. For example, 20 years ago, the predecessors of ID advocates pointed to the modern whale as an example of what would be called irreducible complexity today (that term wasn't used then). The whale, they argued, is a form so specialized that it could not possibly have been produced by Darwinian evolution.

Alan Haywood, author of Creation and Evolution, put it this way: "Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and lost its legs. ... A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stools - it would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival."

The power of science is that, faced with such a challenge, one can test the relevant theory. The theory of evolution predicts that whales with atrophied hind legs must have once swum in the seas. If Darwin is correct, then those whales' fossils must lie buried somewhere. Furthermore, those strange creatures must have arisen during a relatively narrow interval of geological time, after the evolution of the earliest known marine mammals (about 60 million years ago) and before the appearance of the streamlined whales of the present era (which show up in the fossil record during the past 30 million years). Armed with those conclusions, paleontologists searched shallow marine formations from 35 million to 55 million years in age. Sure enough, in the past decade the scientists have excavated dozens of those "missing links" in the development of the whale - curious creatures that sport combinations of anatomical features characteristic of land and sea mammals.

But there's always another challenge to evolution, always another supposed example of irreducible complexity. At the present time the poster child of intelligent design is the flagellum of a bacterium. That complex structure in bacterial walls features a corkscrew-shaped fiber that rotates, propelling the bacterium through the water. Obviously, a completely functioning flagellum is very useful, but it is also obvious that all its parts have to be present for it to function. A nonmoving corkscrew, for example, would be useless and would confer no evolutionary advantage on its own. Roughly 50 molecules are involved in constructing the flagellum, so the probability of all the parts' coming together by chance seems infinitesimally small.

However, that intelligent-design argument contains a hidden assumption: that all parts of a complex structure must have had the same function throughout the history of the development of the organism. In fact, it is quite common for structures to have one function at one time and be adapted for quite another use later on. A land animal's legs become a whale's flippers. An insect may develop bumps on the side of its body to help it get rid of internal heat, but when the bumps get big enough, they may help the insect glide or fly, thus opening up an entirely new ecological niche for exploitation. That process is so common that evolutionary scientists have given it a name: exaptation.

No evolutionary theorist would suggest that something as complex as the flagellum appeared ab initio. Instead, it was assembled from parts that had developed for other uses. For example, some molecules produce energy by rotating, a normal procedure within cells. Other molecules have a shape that makes them ideal for moving materials across cell membranes. The flagellum's building blocks include both types of molecules. Instead of being assembled from scratch, then, the flagellum is put together from a stock of already existing parts, each of which evolved to carry out a completely different task. The flagellum may be complicated, but it is not irreducibly complex.

An important distinction between the theories of intelligent design and miraculous creation is that the former makes predictions that can be tested. The problem with ID, at least so far, is that when statements like the one claiming irreducible complexity for the flagellum are put to the test, they turn out to be wrong.

That distinction means that we should use different methods to counter intelligent design than those that defeated young Earth creationism. The more thoughtful advocates of intelligent design accept many of the tenets of Darwinism - the idea that living things have changed over time, for example. Although the motive of some ID proponents may be to re-introduce God into the debate about the origin of life, their arguments can be met with scientific, not legal, rebuttals. That is good news: They are playing on our field.

Frozen accident versus deterministic origins. The last pair of theories are both subsets of emergent complexity, and both fall within the scientific mainstream; the debate here is about whether life had to develop the way it did, or whether it could have turned out differently. A number of distinguished scientists see the development of life on our planet as a series of accidental, perhaps improbable, events that became locked into the structures of living things - what have been termed "frozen accidents." In the words of the most eloquent advocate for that point of view, the late Stephen Jay Gould, if you played the tape again, you would get a different set of accidents, and hence a different outcome. Therefore life may be rare in the universe, and the way it began and evolved on Earth may be unique.

Other scientists see life's chemical origin and many of its subsequent evolutionary steps as inevitable - a cosmic imperative. Indeed, much modern research on the origin of life is devoted to showing precisely how living things arose from inanimate matter through the action of the ordinary laws of chemistry and physics. That more deterministic view of life's origin and evolution means scientists are more likely to eventually understand the details of life's emergence, and it includes the testable prediction that similar life-forms exist on many other planets throughout the universe.

It seems to us that the frozen-accident theory of life's origin is at best unsatisfying, and may be unworthy of the scientific way of approaching the world. To say that a natural process is random is, in effect, an act of surrender, something that should be done only as a last resort. If you read the frozen-accident literature carefully, you often get the feeling that what is really being said is: "My friends and I can't figure out why things happened this way, so it must have been random."

Another aspect of the frozen-accident school of thought has unfortunate consequences for the educational system. Random events are, by definition, not reproducible. That makes them disturbingly similar to the unknowable interventions posited by intelligent design. Is there really much difference between irreproducible random events and irreproducible acts of God? We should note, however, that proponents of the frozen-accident theory make no claims of divine intervention, while advocates of intelligent design do move on to theological arguments.

Although both the theories of frozen accident and deterministic origins have their supporters, virtually all scientists who work in the field believe that once living things appeared on our planet, the Darwinian process of natural selection guided their development. There is no disagreement on that point, although there is - and should be - vigorous debate on the details of the way natural selection has worked.

Shouldn't we just teach the debates? That is the rallying cry of intelligent-design advocates. Having learned their lesson in Arkansas in 1982, they no longer demand that schools teach the theory of miraculous creation. Instead they say that students should be told that legitimate alternatives to Darwinian evolution exist, and thus biology classes should include the theory of intelligent design.

That argument has an apparent fairness that is hard to resist, especially for academics who believe that, at least in the sciences, subjects should be approached with an open mind and critical thinking. But the idea of "teaching the debate" founders on two points.

First, there really is no debate in the mainstream literature. The vast majority of scientists who study the origin of life accept the idea of nonmiraculous origins without any reservations. Only creationists support the theory of intelligent design.

Second, American students, from kindergarten to university, spend far too little time as it is studying science. We shouldn't teach them about intelligent design for the same reason that we don't teach them that Earth is flat, or that flies are produced by spontaneous generation from rotting meat. It's bad science, and the curriculum has no room for bad science.

Our educational system produces citizens who are ill prepared to deal with a world increasingly dominated by scientific and technological advances. If we were to "teach the debate," what should we remove from the already inadequate curriculum to make room for an idea that has yet to meet even the most rudimentary scientific tests? Should we neglect the environment? Energy? Genetics? Most high-school biology courses devote a pitifully small amount of time to evolution, which is arguably the most important idea in the life sciences. Should we dilute that instruction even further?

The time to discuss altering the curriculum is when the theory of intelligent design reaches the point where it has serious arguments and data to put forward - to the point, in other words, where there is a significant debate among scientists.

-------

Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazen, and James Trefil are, respectively, the Clarence J. Robinson Professors of biology and natural philosophy, earth sciences, and physics at George Mason University.

Sorry this is so long, but I think it's a good article.
Sharon

Crap, sorry for breaking your flow, sorseress. Phil or Tony, could you possibly do a little rearranging?

:read:

Crap, sorry for breaking your flow, sorseress. Phil or Tony, could you possibly do a little rearranging?

:read:

Ditto!

[QUOTE=um...]Kudos, eh? I stand corrected.

Here's an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html) from the NYT about the investigation of scientific literacy in America. My expectations are pretty low, but I was still surprised to learn that, allegedly:




After so many years of low expectation (but high hopes) I'm used to being disappointed, but still, it's horribly discouraging, isn't it?

sorseress, thanks for posting that article. I'd always wondered about the origin of the term 'omphalism', the most vacuous idea in the whole sorry history of vacuous ideas. Hey, what if the universe was really created 14 minutes ago, and it just seems to us that we have memories of events before that time? Soooooo stupid!

Hmmm. Makes sense to me. Of course, I am nothing but a fascist. :smile:

Sorseress,
Thank you very much for the wealth of knowledge and truly enjoyable postings. I am delighted to have discovered this thread. Wonderful read.

Sincerely,
David

Greg, I always figured you for more of a quasi-militant sort of libertarian Deep One sympathizer. But what do I know.

Greg, I always figured you for more of a quasi-militant sort of libertarian Deep One sympathizer. But what do I know.


Shoot. You've blown my cover !!!! I am just part of the advance guard of Sahauginii, doing research until the stars are right...soon, I hope !!!

You know how difficult it is getting fish-frog legs into jodhpurs? Not to mention the big webbed batrachian feet into jackboots?

One thing I've found amusing about this debate is how quickly ID proponents like John West are to publicly distance themselves from the "Young Earth" Creationists.

You know how difficult it is getting fish-frog legs into jodhpurs? Not to mention the big webbed batrachian feet into jackboots?


What a picture! :mrgreen:

Sorseress,
Thank you very much for the wealth of knowledge and truly enjoyable postings. I am delighted to have discovered this thread. Wonderful read.

Sincerely,
David


I can't take credit for much knowledge. I just read alot, and keep coming across some really interesting articles that I feel compelled to share. It's nice having a place to share them with people who find them just as interesting as I do.


Sharon

What a picture! :mrgreen:

you should see me goose-stepping. Yikes!!

Oh, ****.

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey (NYTimes) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html)

Very superstitious, writing’s on the wall,
Very superstitious, ladders bout’ to fall

I'm now officially open to suggestions for where I might emigrate to.

Clem

you should see me goose-stepping. Yikes!!


How in the world did the term goose stepping come about? If those feathered sub sandwiches really goose stepped, ala various armies, they would kick themselves in their chests and fall on their feathered rumps! :lol:

Cheer up, Clem. Only 38% of respondents actually want to replace science with creationism, and that's still a minority.

:smile:

reDiscovery Institute (http://www.re-discovery.org/)

I'm now officially open to suggestions for where I might emigrate to.

May I recommend :kiwiflag: ? No place in the entire country more than 110 miles from the ocean... more recorded species of squid and octo than any other country so far... oh, and today's the first day of spring. :wink:

It's fall here.

If things don't get better here, I'm thinking about going Kiwi when my hitch in the Army is up.....

As long as you like fly fishing, it is the perfect place to be !!! I've always fancied the south coast of Europe...but, have to say, I like it the best here, even now...and it will (and is as we speak) get better !

greg

How in the world did the term goose stepping come about? If those feathered sub sandwiches really goose stepped, ala various armies, they would kick themselves in their chests and fall on their feathered rumps! :lol:

The military marching style of the "goose step" originated with the Romans, who used it as a way of regulating troop speeds while marching along their paved highways. I believe the measurement was roughly one step = three paving stones. If any other trivia-heads out there have the exact figure of measurement, please let me know!

Hmmm, they didn't march that way in "Spartacus".

:lol:

Now what I want to know is, what did they where under their kilts?????

OOOPs!!!!What did thye where????? I don't usually do thing like that!

Now you've seen how well I type.

They wore the Etruscan Tree Octopus coiled under their leather skirting. Okay, actually, they wore shorts. At least the Romans guarding the Northern Frontier against the Picts did.

So do we have any pics of the Etruscan tree octos??? Can't have been nearly as big as the ones on the Olympic peninsula.

Can I just go back on topic for a mo and post a link this article which appeared in the UK's Guardian newspaper this very morn?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

It's by Prof Dawkins.

Um... thanks for the reDiscovery Institute link. Laughing through my terror-induced tears.

CapnNemo - great article!

Thanks, Cap'n Nemo. Excellent post. We needed that.... :oops:

That article by Dawkins and Coyne is simply fantastic, Cap'n. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more lucid smack-down of ID anywhere. I'm not so sure that giving proportionate time to the two "theories" is such a bad idea, though. If we go by number of pages in peer-reviewed papers, then the ratio of ID time to "Darwin" time would be 1 to several (hundred?) thousand. I think we could suck up a few seconds out of an academic year to laugh at the Discovery Institute. Actually, since over 2/3 of students apparently learn no science anyway, it would probably end up requiring no more than a few milliseconds per lifetime to get ID out of the way. Fair enough for me!

:neutral:

Thanks, Cap'n Nemo. Excellent post. We needed that.... :oops:

Hey, no need to be embarrassed, I like a bit of off topic banter as much as the next poster (witness the amber ammonite thread), just thought people might like to read the article. That's one of the (many) great things about Tonmo, these threads wheel and whirl all over the place like an octo scooting through a glass maze for a discovery channel doc.

It's always entertaining.

Who is the next poster by the way?

Well, that settles it for me. Nautiloid fossils now prove the biblical flood apparantly.

It's like a veil lifted from my eyes.

Nautiloids: An Amazing Discovery in the Grand Canyon
by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting

What in the world are nautiloids, and what do they have to do with the layers of the Grand Canyon? It’s an amazing story of an amazing discovery with startling implications in the debate over the age of the earth.

Nautiloids were extinct marine creatures that resembled squids living in hard, chambered shells. Paleontologists have known about nautiloids for a long time but, until the past decade, these fossils have been thought to be extremely rare in the Grand Canyon. However, research by Dr. Steven Austin from the Institute for Creation Research has revealed an extensive nautiloid bed running the whole length of the Canyon and extending all the way to Las Vegas, NV. It is now estimated that there are millions of nautiloid fossils in the Grand Canyon itself.

How could such an extensive display of fossils remain hidden for so long? To be fair, they are in the depths of Grand Canyon, on rock ledges in the Redwall Limestone – not exactly an easy place to get to. However, they are accessible and easily visible to the trained eye. So why haven’t they been discovered before now? Dr. Austin believes it is because traditional geologists have not been asking the right questions. He says, “You find what you’re looking for.” Because of his worldview which includes the historical accuracy of the Genesis Flood, Dr. Austin believed there should be evidence of this Flood left in the rock layers of the earth. Through some rather serendipitous events, careful attention to details, and faith in a God who answers prayer, the discovery was made.

The significance of this find is truly staggering — both in its extent and implications. The sheer numbers indicate a mass-kill event and the orientation of the fossils indicated burial under a fast-moving, laminar flow. This totally demolishes the traditional interpretation of the slow and gradual deposition of the Redwall Limestone under shallow, placid seas. It also cuts out “millions” of years of time from the rock strata – time in which evolution was thought to occur. These findings fit perfectly with the Biblical account of creation, followed by a catastrophic Flood.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newlet/NovDec%202004.htm (I wouldn't bother though).

(Oh, and thanks for the great posts and interesting links CapnNemo and Sorseress. A fascinating discussion, everyone. The fossils forum has never been so busy! Great reading.)

Hmmm. I am in the process of moving some branches away from a section of my concrete wall, so I can
RUN INTO IT

Dave & Mary Jo Nutting? Could that be any easier?

"It's a Great Day to Be a Creationist", eh? Yeah, maybe. Bad century, but one heck of a great day.

If things don't get better here, I'm thinking about going Kiwi when my hitch in the Army is up.....

c'mon down mate!

J

The best source of reliable news out there :

http://www.theonion.com/content/science

Gaa! There it is again: trying to prove the existence of a God through science! As a decided Christian, that aggrivates me. The proof that Creationists offer against evolution can only convince the already convinced. Those who offer verification of ID generally use circular logic. How frustrating! Upon closer inspection, it appears that Creationists are fighting the wrong battle. ID is only linked to the real center of Christianity. Putting ID in schools isn't going to change anything; those who don't recognize any authority in the Bible will not spontaneously convert after listening to a science teacher mention ID.

I hope that in my inevitably scientific career, I can help resolve this unnecessary issue. :mad: