A recent episode of Nova about the high-profile 2006 Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial has been cited for numerous false facts and false insinuations. The episode, entitled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial," contains "blatant misrepresentations" and "misinformation," according to the Discovery Institute, the leading think tank of the intelligence design movement.
Among the falsehoods:
5. PBS wrongly claims that the Type III Secretory System (T3SS) refutes the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum.
PBS features flagellum expert David K. DeRosier repeating the testimony of Ken Miller, claiming that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because the T3SS "is a structure that functions that is missing several" of the proteins of the flagellum. In fact, this is not the correct test of irreducible complexity. Behe properly tests irreducible complexity by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.
Again, the complete list of errors is here.
By the way ... In the case, Judge John E. Jones declared is his ruling that it was unconstitutional to read a statement about intelligent design in public school classrooms in Dover. However, following the case, the Discovery Institute released an eye-opening report with a startling finding about Judge Jones's decision:
90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU.
Whoa! (Although what the judge did was not illegal, federal rulings have stated that the practice of copying texts from attorneys "verbatim or near-verbatim" is "highly disapproved of" (link). Read more here, if you wish.)
There are many widespread misperceptions about intelligent design, and, unfortunately, PBS has further propagated them.
Have you heard intelligent design (ID) "isn't science"? Have you heard that ID is just the same as creationism? Have you heard that ID is just an attempt to inject religion into schools? If so, you may want to read the excellent easy-to-read packet, "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators" (pdf). There's also "Top Questions and Answers About Intelligent Design Theory." Check 'em out.
Is ID getting a fair shake in the public arena, the courts, and the media? It doesn't look like it is at all. Certainly not at PBS.
(See also the Discovery Institute's "What Nova Won't Tell You About Dover: The Truth About 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial'.")
(HT: Stand to Reason blog.)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
One Question Missing
November 18, 2007 - 02:33 ET by JSchulerfrom the top 10.
What discovery would falsify intelligent design? For instance, with evolution, if you discovered the fossil of a Giraffe that was five billion years old, evolution would be disproven. Or, if you could run a grand experiment of observing a natural, living, earth-like systems for tens of millions of years and there was no radical difference between start and finish in any of them, like a mouse turning into a dolphin, evolution would be falsified.
Falsifiablity is, of course, what makes something "science."
So, what experiment could yeild a result that would cause IDers to pack it in and call it a day? It doesn't necessarily have to be feasible (such as the ten million year study), just within the realm of physical possibility (no "ask the intelligent designer if he did all this, and if he says 'no,' then we're wrong") .
If there isn't one, then Nova was correct and ID is no more scientific than astrology. As this is such a vital question, I find it curious that it's missing, as the other questions really are not informative at all on the "Is ID science?" question.
Also, if ID has no problem with common ancestry, then why debate #6 at all instead of just saying "ID does not deny the possibility that man and apes are related, so this line of questioning is a red-herring?" Of course people will think ID has a problem with common ancestry if IDers keep trying to disprove common ancestries.
"if you discovered the
November 18, 2007 - 08:21 ET by Jerry"if you discovered the fossil of a Giraffe that was five billion years old, evolution would be disproven"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "prehistoric record" contain turtles, mosquitos, and other creatures exactly as we see them today?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
What does that have to do
November 19, 2007 - 03:35 ET by JSchulerWhat does that have to do with finding a griaffe fossil, which is a highly evolved mammal, at a time period where only single-celled organisms should exist? Are you stating that mosquitos as they exist today are far too advanced to have existed tens of millions of years ago?
Why did the mosquito STOP
November 19, 2007 - 08:56 ET by JerryWhy did the mosquito STOP evolving? Are you telling me the mosquito reached it's Nirvanah millions of years ago? While other organisms kept evolving down the evolutionary path toward "griaffe" and "man", the mosquito said, "this is good as it gets"?
Are you telling me the turtle is not a "highly evolved" organism?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Is the mosquito not fit
November 19, 2007 - 16:57 ET by JSchulerIs the mosquito not fit enough to survive? Evolution is not about reaching a Nirvanah, it's about reaching an equlibrium with the environment. As long as a species is able to reliably achieve the resources that it needs to survive, and reproduce fast enough to replace those who fall victim to predation, then newly required traits likely will not provide such an advantage to survival to ensure that they are passed on and become dominant in future generations. Or, at least if they do, there is no reason that that those with the new traits will cause those with the old to go extinct. Thus, you could have hundreds of species all descended from and living along side the same species.
The turtle is highly evolved, and so if a five-billion year-old fossil of it was found, that would falsify evolution. Of course, if you found a sixty-million year old fossil of a turtle, that wouldn't, as turtles were no more evolved than any reptile that lived at that time. A sixty-million year old giraffe, however...
double post
November 19, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Jerrydouble post
JS
November 18, 2007 - 11:10 ET byPerhaps you can suggest a test for falsifiability? How about if we find the fossils of one half of the steps between the "supposed common ancestor between apes and man" and modern man? How sbout if we find only 500 of these steps? 100? 50? 25? 10? (I have Dawkins books and am not afraid to quote them) Or, on the other side how about you provide the driving mechanism for 'punctuated equilibrium', these are both basics which i am sure you are familiar with.
On the other hand you may at least look at this so called non-scientific paper
And though ID and creation are not the same would you consider testable to be synonomous with falsifiable (early summary here)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Well, if you actually read
November 19, 2007 - 04:14 ET by JSchulerWell, if you actually read my post, you would realize that I provided ways evolution could be falsified.
As for your paper, yeah, it's non-scientific. It begins with a lit review, which you do in any high-level humanities course in college, such as english or history (no one in these fields would call them "scientific"). Then, it launches into a bunch of educated guesses and assumptions, with values attached to them. It actually reads like a climate computer model. You know, the ones that predict that a 1 degree rise in temperature will cause the oceans to boil off in a run-away greenhouse effect. I suppose you'll point to the fact that it was peer reviewed somewhere. Big deal. History and literature articles also undergo peer review.
That's not to say that the paper could not be rewritten to be scientifc. Instead of taking its arbitrarily assigned values as givens, it could actually try to propose ways for nailing down the actual data. It doesn't though, and as we are actually begining to find out how common planets are in the universe, and getting a good idea of their compesition, those "generous" probabilities are looking pretty pessimistic in comparison to actual data. Plus, some of these criteria are just rediculous (e.g. age of the planet? At some point in their life span, a planet will be neither too young nor too old: it's impossible to skip middle age). Of course, that the probabilities for life may turn out to be much better won't affect his conclusions at all. He can simply state that it's so remarkable that physical laws allow life to be so common that it must be proof of design. After all, that's what he began his article by stating before talking about how improbable Earth's existence was.
And no, testable is not synonomous with falsifiable. Tests can be constructed that can only bolster a theory's credibility without risking invalidating the underpinnings.
if you discovered the
November 19, 2007 - 20:56 ET byif you discovered the fossil of a Giraffe on Earth that was five billion years old, intelligent design would be disproven
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
It would, huh? "Well boys,
November 19, 2007 - 22:31 ET by JSchulerIt would, huh? "Well boys, there's a Giraffe where, acording to natural laws as we understand them, there shouldn't be one. So, the only conclusion is that there's no intelligence involved here."
Falsifiability is the issue
November 18, 2007 - 16:03 ET by scamoramaTo be taken seriously, a theory has to be falsifiable. A theory that invokes supernatural mechanisms cannot be falsified.
I watched the show (and read the court transcripts and support documents) and kept waiting for them to show the exchange with Behe over the blood clotting cascade -- another of his "irreducibles". In testimony, Behe had to backtrack because his arguments were pretty well destroyed. I guess the flagellum made for a prettier graphic, but the cascade was better science.
I wish people wouldn't make this a matter of faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and my view has long been that if a person needed evidence, what he had wasn't faith.
Riddle me this: if the human is the "pinnacle of creation", then why is the human eye inferior to that of the octopus in its design?
Scamorama
November 18, 2007 - 20:38 ET byI would beg to differ with your concept of faith. Faith is what you work with after the evidence and reason is expended. Blind faith works without evidence and is foolishness.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I was paraphrasing
November 18, 2007 - 21:10 ET by scamoramaI was paraphrasing Paul:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).”
I agree with you regarding "blind faith". Man was not made to be foolish.
Faith is substance
November 18, 2007 - 21:20 ET byand the hope is based on thin air? No, line upon line, precept upon precept; we do not bring you cleverly devised fables but that which we have seen, touched, felt of the word of life. It's eyewitness accounts. For if Christ be not raised our faith is useless. (if it is not reality based and reasonable!)
Why would you think Paul wrote Hebrews?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
but scamorama
November 18, 2007 - 21:24 ET bytest all things
Which is to get back to the subject, what the ID movement is about
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Yes, test
November 18, 2007 - 22:37 ET by scamoramaAnd testing is (so far) where ID falls. Of course, as a theory, it's somewhat an infant, so it is very premature to dismiss it.
Were you suggesting earlier that Paul didn't write that particular Epistle?
well scamorama
November 18, 2007 - 22:46 ET bydid you check the links from my post above ?
and yes, the writer of Hebrews (other than the Spirit) seems to be a question still debated, though most scholars would say Paul.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Not yet
November 18, 2007 - 22:52 ET by scamoramaBut I'll be reading them later, and we can continue this then.
Thanks for reminding about them.
And evolution shines in
November 20, 2007 - 10:00 ET by fosstenAnd evolution shines in testing? Don't make me laugh.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
what a waste of time
November 18, 2007 - 03:37 ET by AjtlawyerAs a conservative and a Christian, I find the on-going arguments between evolution and creationism/intelligent design (don't b.s. me---they're different names for the same thing) to be a complete and utter waste of people's time. There is nothing incompatible at all with God the Creator creating the universe and creating the human race through a mechanism, divinely created and divinely guided, of evolutionary biology.
If God willed it to be so, it is so. My belief as a Christian and my standing as a sinner who has been saved by Christ's sacrifice for me, is not contingent whatsoever in how I believe God brought Creation into being. The observable universe is rife with evidence that the universe came into being over an immense, almost unlimited period of time. It is believed that the Earth is probably 4.5 billion years old. If you drew a line in the desert 4.5 kilometers long, 1 km for every billion years of the Earth's existance, the entire history of the human race would be contained in the last 3 millimeters of that line, that's now short man's existance has been in the great measure of time.
I do not believe that God placed signs of evolutionary change throughout the universe and into our world only to have them be some sort of elaborate sleight of hand to misdirect mankind from the "intelligent design" or "creationism" theory that all of this was accomplished in only a few days and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Einstein said that God didn't play dice with the universe. Nor do I believe that the evidence that is apparent throughout the observable universe is some elaborate trick God is playing on us nor do I believe that he let Satan run amok to plant such false clues in order to mislead us.
So would Christians please, please, please quit beating this dead horse? There are far greater concerns for Christians to be involved in than in arguing about how exactly we were created. It is enough to acknowledge that God created us. Those who refuse to acknowledge that God created us are not going to be persuaded otherwise by making them sit down and listen to "intelligent design" theories. It will come from the Holy Spirit bearing witness to them and the unbeliever's willingness to listen to that voice.
You must be in Europe
November 18, 2007 - 04:56 ET by old croThe United States education system does not do metric (at least while I was in it) so the effect of your timeline may not be an effective graphical image to some without a conversion, so here we go:
1 mile = 1.6093 kilometers
1 inch = 25.4 millimeters thus
If you drew a line in the desert 2.8 miles (14, 784 feet or 177,408 inches) long, 0.62 miles (3,273.6 feet or 39.283.2 inches) for every
billion years of the Earth's existance, the entire history of the human
race would be contained in the last 0.177 inch or 3/16 of an inch of that line, that's how short man's existance has been in the great measure of time.
I hope my conversions are correct ;(
"How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't live there?"
-Steven Wright
I always liked this one:
November 18, 2007 - 08:12 ET by heldmywOn top of the Empire State building, stack; one
12-inch ruler (on end), on that, place a dime, on that dime, place a
postage stamp (flat).
Start from ground level.
The Empire State building is the duration of the Earth's existence before animals.
The Ruler marks the beginning of animals,
the dime is the beginning of the existence of hominids, and
the postage stamp thickness is the length of time that man has been recognizable as... man.
While these are demonstrable durations with good, scientific
support, no one I know of is actually going around spouting that they
know exactly how all this came to be...
Personally, I find it impossible to believe it's a coincidence,
happenstance, or whatever.
Or the Earth in 24 hours,
November 18, 2007 - 18:31 ET by Lord ElicaniOr the Earth in 24 hours, where humans come of age at 11:59:59 PM.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
What you dont get is through
November 18, 2007 - 06:23 ET by Dan The Man 2What you dont get is through ID and it isnt the same we are scientifically supporting teh idea of a creater or intelegent hand in the development of teh earth. You have obviously bought into evolution and the theory taht teh earth is billions of years old, ewhich it may be depending on how you read the Bible.
One thing in proving ID we must set the complexity level of creation. The next we must ask whewre proof for evolustion is, macroevolution not micro. Micro evlotion is pretty musch a scientific fact. But most evolutionist believe in macro so we must show the holes in it.
One interesting hypothesis for the fossils is Satan put them there, not provable but certainly within the spectrum. Why cant you believe God let Satan do what he wanted, ever read Job? Satan is an Angel and as such has leeway. It is also as provable as trans species migration from apes to man.
It is not enough to know God created us and never has been. Gallaleo or Newton or Pastuer did not think so, tehy wqnted to see the miracle of God.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"So would Christians
November 18, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Jerry"So would Christians please, please, please quit beating this dead horse? There are far greater concerns for Christians to be involved in than in arguing about how exactly we were created."
Then why is "the world" so intent on debunking Creationism. They know that by pounding the message "evolution = truth, Creationism = fairy tale", the youths of today WILL turn away from the Bible, WILL turn away from Christ, and WILL adopt the "world view".
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I agree that is part of it,
November 19, 2007 - 04:21 ET by JSchulerI agree that is part of it, but the reason that my little part of the world is so intent on debunking ID is not because I want people to turn away from Christ (Before undertaking such a task I would stop going to Church regularly), but because ID tries to pass itself off as science, and in doing so creates serious confusion as to what science is. If you want to teach that the reason we're all here is because God created us, fine, teach that, but do it in religion class (if you're a private school) or a philosophy class (where it can be taught right along side other competing views). Keep it out of biology classes because it is not at all related to biology.
I can live with ID being
November 19, 2007 - 10:01 ET by JerryI can live with ID being taught in religion class, but then evolution should only be taught in a secularism class.
The foundation of life is DNA. DNA is a complex code (information). Information, by its very nature, requires a provider of that information. Information cannot just randomly come into being. Nowhere in the known universe does order arise out of chaos by its own means.
If the THEORY of evolution is taught in biology, then the THEORY of ID should also, unless you are saying DNA is not a concept that is pertitent to biology?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I disagree
November 19, 2007 - 10:13 ET by JasonCI disagree completely.
DNA is a complex code of information because we, through scientific methods, have organized it as such. The specific nature of genetic material is carbon-based proteins. It exists as an understandable system because we have created such a system to define them. DNA was meaningless up until very recently because there was no model/apparatus for systematizing it. So I reject the notion that it took an intelligent being to place that information there.
Order arises out of chaos consistently. Solar systems, for instance, are formed by chaotic arrangements of matter, very gradually, finding a center of gravity and working themselves into a predictable system.
Until someone can demonstrate that ID is anything more than an attempt to legitimize Genesis with pseudo-scientific jargon, I am completely against teaching it in a non-religious school setting. I'm not saying ID should be completely repressed. I think the cultural issue of ID v. Evolution should be discussed in Social Studies courses (that's how my high school did it), but has no place in biology.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Excuse me, JasonC, but your
November 19, 2007 - 10:47 ET by fosstenExcuse me, JasonC, but your statement "order arises out of chaos" and the rest of the paragraph that follows is blatantly false and is contradicted by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Furthermore, you have bought into the ignorance of the anti-ID debate. If I were to ask you to look at your PC in front of you, and asked you if someone designed it, what would you say? You didn't witness its design or construction, you have no evidence or proof whatsoever that it was built instead of arising from a random smashing together of subatomic particles, yet your common sense tells you that it was designed and constructed. But you look at the world, with its macro and micro complexities that far outweigh the simplicities of the Personal Computer, and the universe with its inexplicable and incomprehensible complexities, and you reject the notion that it was created. The contradiction is staggering.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
The world's macro/micro
November 19, 2007 - 11:03 ET by JasonCThe world's macro/micro complexities are organic. My laptop's construction is synthetic. And the Dell corporations explicit and ubiquitous claiming of credit for its existence convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it did not just congeal in a freak intermingling of materials.
Which law of thermodynamics did I breach? The first specifically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Or is it the 2nd law which demonstrates the universe's continued entropy? That law is dependent on the Big Bang theory, rather at odds with ID.
So, perhaps order out of chaos is a misguided phrasing, but the fact remains that solar systems are created by simple concepts like gravity and inertia, on a gigantic scale. Perhaps all of the matter floating around before it systematizes cannot be scientifically described as chaotic (I meant the term loosely), but it does, nonetheless go from unsystematized to systematized.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, you only strengthen
November 19, 2007 - 11:20 ET by fosstenJasonC, you only strengthen my argument. You are saying that a synthetic construction, which man can create, is easier for you to believe than that God, whose ubiquitous and explicit claiming of credit for the creation of the universe is found throughout the Bible, has the power to create life. How much harder is it for you to believe that the Big Bang, which presumably started out without life, somehow resulted in life being "created" by an accidental chain of events? You accept that on much more faith than I do that God did it. Your argument that a laptop is synthetic points out the limitations of the creation of man; that is that man cannot create life. Yet you believe that life somehow happened by accident?
I could also argue that there is nothing synthetic in a computer because it is composed only of elements found in the periodic table, i.e. only materials that exist organically on this planet. Your claim that a laptop is synthetic and is somehow different from the creation of the universe is oversimplification and not scientific at all.
You accept on faith that your laptop was created by Dell because you did not witness its creation. No matter that others say so - you have no proof.
The Big Bang Theory is contradicted by the first law; i.e. the Big Bang Theory starts out "Assume an explosion." There must be matter to explode, which means "Assume matter." Where did this matter come from? You cannot answer that; you must take it on faith. (I know the answer!)
The evolution of species is contradicted by the second law, entropy. For a new species to develop from an existing species requires NEW information to be written as DNA. This has NEVER been proven to have happened. There is absolutely NO evidence that this can or did occur. Yet another thing that evolutionists accept on faith.
Should I continue? I've got about a hundred of these examples.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
whose ubiquitous and
November 19, 2007 - 11:33 ET by JasonCwhose ubiquitous and explicit claiming of credit for the creation of the universe is found throughout the Bible
You lose vast amounts of credibility right here. It's a book. It's an allegorical approach to history. It's not evidence of anything remotely scientific.
I have overwhelming, firsthand evidence that my laptop was created by human beings employed by Dell. Your rhetorical sleight-of-hand that all parts of it are found on the periodic table is technically true, but that presumes that there is no difference between organic and synthetic matter. Plastic and lcd displays may be composed of basic elements, but it takes a laboratory to put them together in such a way that a synthetic composite is made.
Your "where did the matter come from" question is something I'd expect to hear from an Astronomy 101 student who came to class stoned. The Big Bang has been supported over and over again by real scientists' research. If you want to take one mind-boggling philosophical question about its origin and use it to chip away at an overwhelmingly verified theory - and then make the leap to an intelligent creator, as if that's such a problem-free solution - be my guest. I, of course, could play that game as well and ask, "Well where did God come from." You would get the free pass because one can't question that, right? But I have the burden of proof of where the matter came from?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"The Big Bang has been
November 19, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Jerry"The Big Bang has been supported over and over again by real scientists' research."
Yeah, and man made global warming is the "concensus" of the scientific community also. The "Big Bang" is yet another THEORY that is being taught as FACT in our wonderful institutes of indoctrination.
"I have overwhelming, firsthand evidence that my laptop was created by human beings employed by Dell."
And you would know this, even if it was created millions of years ago. Why? Because it has a level of complexity that is not NATURAL and could not have occurred on it's own. Hello!! The "simple" single cell is a million times more complex than the laptop. If you want to believe that it created itself, you are welcome to your illusion (delusion) of wisdom.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I don't lose any
November 19, 2007 - 11:55 ET by fosstenI don't lose any credibility based solely upon your say-so. You may not want to accept the concept of a creator, but your attempt to slough off an argument in favor of design based on complexity, using a comparison to a laptop is amateurish and laughable. Hey, if we're going to start with the insults (Astronomy 101 student who came to class stoned) then I would point out to you that you have yet to put forth a scientific argument in favor of your belief system. Your pejorative references (a la Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins) are exactly what I would expect from an evolutionist who wants to prevent ID from being taught in schools because he fears the resultant explosion of questions that may pop his fragile little bubble. You cannot debate on the merits scientifically, so you throw insults. And who is losing credibility here?
You clearly haven't explored the ID position in even the most cursory fashion, nor do you have any desire to. You claim to be open minded and scientific in your approach, yet you cannot get to first base with me on any truly scientific level in demonstrating the supposed high levels of scientific evidence that prove evolution is true. You simply CLAIM that you have this evidence. But you don't even know your own "science."
The fact is that scientists have not been able to empirically research the Big Bang, so they have simply constructed "models" to explain it. Let me put this in laymen's terms: In other words, scientists made up a theory, and then drew pictures to demonstrate it, and then had it put in government school textbooks. That's the truth, no matter what you've been told. Any time someone has really dug deep and started asking questions about the validity of the "science" behind evolution, they are excoriated, insulted (like you've done to me) and silenced.
Reminds me of the Global Warming debate - those who oppose it are not permitted to present their findings. They are simply called names ("deniers") and shut out of the debate. ID is an attempt to allow people to ask questions and debate whether or not evolution, which is still a THEORY, is true. Since it has not been proven as a fact, you might want to ask why evolutionary scientists are reluctant to allow anyone to question it.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Fossten, my laptop analogy
November 19, 2007 - 17:42 ET by JasonCFossten, my laptop analogy was amateurish?! It was your analogy, I just played along!
Wow....
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Still waiting Fossten. You
November 19, 2007 - 21:09 ET by JasonCStill waiting Fossten. You brought up the computer analogy, are you going to call yourself amateurish now?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Your analogy
November 20, 2007 - 08:08 ET by fosstenYou're giving me a hard time for not responding right away, despite the fact that you didn't respond to my post for nearly SIX HOURS? You are some hypocritical piece of work. I'm not sorry to say this - I have more important things to do than to answer you the moment after you post something. If you're going to be hypocritical and rude to me, continue your personal attacks, and distract from the issue, then I have no more desire to speak to you. I will answer this last part and then we are finished.
You said laptop, I never said that. I said PC. You said synthetic vs. organic, I never said that. This is your analogy.
Are you going to do me the courtesy of responding to my post, or are you going to continue to use your OTHER tactic (besides personal attacks) of distracting from the subject at hand?
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Good lord Fossten, I'm the
November 20, 2007 - 10:02 ET by JasonCGood lord Fossten, I'm the hypocrite? How is laptop such a stretch from PC? I didn't answer you for six hours because I was working, and normally I wouldn't badger someone about it, but the utter gall that you had to call my example "amateurish" when you specifically asked me how I knew my PC was created! I'd love to hear how PC and Laptop differ so dramatically, but I'd just as soon be through talking to you.
What personal attack? That your question was reminiscent of a stoned kid in Astronomy 101? Yeah, I could see how that would be wounding. I didn't wine when you said I was clueless and stupid, did I?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Uhhh...please show me where
November 20, 2007 - 10:46 ET by fosstenUhhh...please show me where I said you were "clueless and stupid."
You've managed to dumb down the debate so that it is pointless to continue. Good job. You argue just like a liberal. You still won't answer my previous post. You have proved my point. I'm finished talking to you.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
My mistake Foss, I was
November 20, 2007 - 13:00 ET by JasonCMy mistake Foss, I was thinking of a different science vs. bible debate I had recently where those terms were used. I apologize for attributing it to you. Can you at the very least admit that the computer analogy was all you? Or at least tell me why PC differs from laptop, considering how prevalent laptops are these days?
Sorry if I hurt your feelings with my remark, my only point was that the "where did the matter come from in the first place" is one of those insanely paradoxical, chicken/egg questions that gets more into philosophy than science. And if their presence was the work of a creator, I certainly don't buy the idea that that creator is the spitting image of what's depicted in the Christian bible.
Clearly we won't find much common ground on this issue. But I still can't agree with teaching a completely unfalsifiable theory in science classes, especially one with such strong links to religion.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged ID
November 20, 2007 - 13:09 ET by fossten"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
"We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing. Any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
What is your point? Can
November 20, 2007 - 15:14 ET by JasonCWhat is your point? Can you at least provide a little bit of commentary in your own words?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"It exists as an
November 19, 2007 - 11:34 ET by Jerry"It exists as an understandable system because we have created such a system to define them."
That's like stumbling upon a book on Einstein's theory of relativity and claiming it is not information just because you haven't created a system to define it. You are saying it will only become information once you can understand it, and from your prospective, I guess that is true, but that does not change the fact that it IS information.
"Order arises out of chaos consistently."
Given enough time, all things will break DOWN into their base components. Even the mightiest rock will eventually become sand and dust. Things break down. That is the natural order. A house is a complex entity, but it did not will itself into existence. A house exists because someone built it, but it too will eventually become dust.
"Solar systems, for instance, are formed by chaotic arrangements of matter, very gradually, finding a center of gravity and working themselves into a predictable system."
You are assuming of course, that the planets created themselves.
"I am completely against teaching it in a non-religious school setting.."
Evolution is a religion for the secularists, so we should not teach it in "science" class. You want one THEORY taught as FACT but are opposed to the MERE mentioning of ID as a possibility.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I have to go soon, so I'll
November 19, 2007 - 11:41 ET by JasonCI have to go soon, so I'll just deal with my favorite three points....
You are assuming of course, that the planets created themselves.
With some help from nearby stars and supernovae and asteroids, yes. It's called astronomy!
Evolution is a religion for the secularists, so we should not teach it
in "science" class.
Bologna. You sound like Ann Coulter, calling liberalism religion. People believe in evolution because its been so widely demonstrated, not to piss off Christians. It's not our fault Genesis doesn't hold up to rigorous peer review.
You want one THEORY taught as FACT but are opposed
to the MERE mentioning of ID as a possibility.
I want it taught as science. As in introducing the myriad facts that support it. I have no problem with discussing ID, but as I said, it should be done in Social Studies classes, because it's a social issue concerning a certain noisy contingent of Christians portraying themselves and their beliefs as victims of scientific progress.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Let me deal with your
November 19, 2007 - 12:08 ET by fosstenLet me deal with your favorite three points -
With some help from nearby stars and supernovae and asteroids, yes. It's called astronomy!
This is false. This does not have any evidence of happening even in recorded history.
Bologna. You sound like Ann Coulter, calling liberalism religion. People believe in evolution because its been so widely demonstrated, not to piss off Christians. It's not our fault Genesis doesn't hold up to rigorous peer review.
Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang, and any other major related tenet has NOT been widely demonstrated with any scientific accuracy. Like Global Warming, it is based on junk science and requires large amounts of faith.
I want it taught as science. As in introducing the myriad facts that support it. I have no problem with discussing ID, but as I said, it should be done in Social Studies classes, because it's a social issue concerning a certain noisy contingent of Christians portraying themselves and their beliefs as victims of scientific progress.
Aha! So you are an advocate! You have lost all credibility here. You are not interested in exploring the science, including all the problems evolution has in explaining itself, you only want it taught. I rest my case.
The more science has progressed, the more evolution has been shown to be false. Michael Behe, for example, showed the irreducible complexity of cellular structure (that Darwin was unaware of ) in his book "Darwin's Black Box." Now that we can microscopically examine cells and even atoms, we are finding that evolutionary scientists are having more and more difficulty holding on to their previously unassailable belief systems. Yet they continue to do so by continuing to make things up.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
"so I'll just deal with my
November 19, 2007 - 12:09 ET by Jerry"so I'll just deal with my favorite three points.."
Easy way out.
"It's called astronomy!"
Astronomy is based on observing the heavens. It begins with the assumption that the universe formed itself. Science oft times leads to faulty conclusions when based upon a faulty premise. You claim the premise is sound. I claim that it is faulty. I can live with that. I can live with evolution being taught in schools, but would like all alternatives discussed also. You apparently cannot live with ID or Creationism being taught in schools.
"Bologna"
Mmmmm.. bologna.. fried... with cheese..
"People believe in evolution because its been so widely demonstrated.."
People believe in evolution because they have been TOLD that it is widely demostrated. A species will adapt to survive. God gave us that gift so that life could survive varying environmental conditions. But NOWHERE has it been demonstrated that a species will morph into another species. A dog will evolve to survive, ie. long hair, short hair, etc, but it is and ALWAYS will be a dog.
"It's not our fault Genesis doesn't hold up to rigorous peer review"
That is the height of self righteous self importance. So, it can only be true if man says so? BTW, God has NO peers, why would he need peer review?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
But ID isn't a theory,
November 19, 2007 - 17:05 ET by JSchulerBut ID isn't a theory, evolution is. ID cannot be falsified. Evolution can. That's the reason you have mulitple theories of evolution throughout time: eventually, new information comes along that cause the old theories to be rendered obsolette. Granted, this new information tends not to challenge the fundamental understanding, and so evolution in general has survived. That's not to say that there couldn't arrise some information that shakes our understanding to the core.
And no, if you paid attention in biology class, you would know that there are other codes other than DNA that can convey information. DNA just happens to be the most stable.
Theistic Evolution?
November 18, 2007 - 09:11 ET by misterbee241I know exactly how God used evolution to get things where they are.
In Genesis 1, there is a gap of several million years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (http://www.google.co...). It was during this "gap" that God "evolved" a bacteria, which He "evolved" from nothing, into dinosaurs and cavemen. But it was also at the end of this gap of time there was a tremendous global upheaval that wiped away all of the creatures and God started over with Adam and Eve.
This Gap Theory is about as silly as Theistic Evolution and Darwin's Evolution. But there was a time leading theologians believed in the gap theory and taught it.
I'm of the mind if God used evolution, His word would have said so. Besides, I thought evolution was entirely random and hit-or-miss, so it cant be guided by an Intellegent Being.
Is ID the same as creationism? As far as I'm concerned, yes.
Ajtlawyer
November 18, 2007 - 09:49 ET by fosstenI'm afraid that you have been duped. There is a very good reason that Christians believe that the earth was created in six days and that God did not use some sort of "mechanism" to evolve man over millions of years.
It's very simple, and as a "Christian" you should know better. There is ample evidence in the Bible that refutes this theory, but let's start with this:
Romans 5:12-14 - 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Reading this passage it is CLEAR that sin preceded death and that Adam preceded sin. Death was a PUNISHMENT and a RESULT of the sin of Adam and Eve. Go read Genesis if you're unsure about this. So if man evolved over millions of years, death would have HAD to come before sin, which theory is completely obliterated by this passage.
One of the reasons that people want to believe in so-called "Theistic Evolution" is because it helps soothe their conscience to believe that death wasn't brought about by sin, and therefore there is no consequence for their sin. This is an insidious attempt to blur the clarity of God's message to us about sin and death. To believe in "Theistic Evolution" is to believe that the Bible is wrong. And don't give me that "your interpretation" garbage either. If you are a Christian and have read the entire Bible you would know instinctively that this is correct, and now you know why it is important for a Christian not to compromise with atheists and evolutionists when it comes to the Bible.
As for Satan not being allowed to roam the Earth misleading us, if you believe that, then you haven't read your Bible.
Job 1:7 - And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Forgive me, but I find it
November 18, 2007 - 13:13 ET by CortillaenForgive me, but I find it hard to believe all living creatures suddenly went from immortal to mortal thanks to the first human screw-up. Don't forget that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, and the record of creation is not likely to have been made by a first-hand source. Even accepting that God directly told the recorder of the events, is it even remotely possible that a human could understand those events as they truly happened? Whatever else, never forget that the Bible is transcribed by humans, and is thus susceptible to human limitations. The message may be perfect, but its recorder may not.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Cort
November 18, 2007 - 13:22 ET byI for one hold to plenary inspiration, which is to say the Autographs contain the writing of fallible humans as inspired by an infallible God and thus are correct. Like when your 3 year old makes a cake with mommy or daddys 'help'. There are theological reasons I don't hold to the obviously spiritual death of man (on the day you eat you will die, the death was not physical) affecting the physical death of animals.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Gap Theory is bunk
November 18, 2007 - 15:42 ET by fosstenIn Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.
The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:
John 3:12 - If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
gap theory is bunk
November 18, 2007 - 16:02 ET bywhile i don't agree with the gap theory it is none the less possible else you limit God.
yom can mean time period as well as 24 hour.
how do you explain evening and morning for days 1 and 2 since the sun is not created until the third day? or is this Moses' viewpoint while God was revealing the creation to him during a 7 day period?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I have less of a problem
November 18, 2007 - 18:22 ET by fosstenI have less of a problem explaining that than you do of explaining how relevant a gap between the first and third day would be to biological evolution of millions of species, especially since animals weren't created yet. The gap theory that you are arguing "could" have happened here isn't relevant to the theory espoused by so-called theistic evolutionists. So it really isn't even necessary for me to explain it. However, I will simply say that the omission of any mention of a gap whatsoever supports my argument to the extent that any gap theorist is unable to prove it wrong. The only reason for a gap theory is to allow for God using evolution, which itself isn't supported by fossil or astronomic or genetic scientific evidence anyway.
Furthermore, please show me any and all evidence found in the Bible which supports the "gap theory" in ANY way whatsoever, and then revisit the Exodus passages which I recently referenced, and tell me HONESTLY, which theory is most supported by the plain language of the Bible: Six actual 24 hour days, or some whimsical, nebulous period of billions of years somehow squeezed incomprehensibly and inexplicably in between two or three of the six days referenced in Genesis. If you can somehow invoke your common sense in this discussion, you would find this absurd.
The gap theory is the scientific equivalent of the Supreme Court "discovering" the right to an abortion inside the Constitution. It's not there, they just "made it up."
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
fossten
November 19, 2007 - 21:06 ET byi don't hold to the gap theory just as i stated.
Just because God can do all possible things doesn't mean i believe it likely that He did. I merely posited that it is possible since "Nothing shall be impossible for God"
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Which Bible are you
November 18, 2007 - 15:24 ET by fosstenWhich Bible are you reading? The one I read doesn't depend on man's textual criticism in order to be accepted as accurate. Never mind that the textual critics of the last 100 years are fallible human beings using lexicons written by fallible human beings, both attempting to alter the written words and their meanings in the Bible - you are diminishing the status of the Bible down to the level of other books. If you really believe that the Bible has errors, then you cannot believe what God says about preserving His word. In which case, you have no foundation on which to trust ANYTHING the Bible says.
Read Psalm 119, 2 Thessalonians 3, Deuteronomy 28:58-59. Also note this verse, where God puts the status of His WORD above his NAME: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Ps 138:2)
See also Proverbs 30:5-6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Rev. 22:18-19, Matthew 4:4, 1 Cor. 14:33.
Any questions?
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Excellent job
November 19, 2007 - 00:09 ET by JerryExcellent job Fossten!
There is One who walked the earth who knew for a fact whether or not the Torah was factually accurate. Jesus most assuredly would have set the record straight; ie. "why do you put your faith in the word of man". Instead he studied and quoted from the scriptures, often chastising others by saying "haven't ye read...". The Son of the God,