Teaching Oklahoma kids alternatives to evolution and global warming

[badger]

Bill passes House panel.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120221_336_0_OKLAHO325826)


Under the bill, students would be free to dispute science information presented by teachers in appropriate places -- such as term papers and class discussions -- but would still be responsible for learning the curriculum they are taught for testing purposes, he said.

When I was in elementary school, I learned about Greek mythology, and learned that "myths" were made up stories used to explain things. Then, by the time I made it through high school and OU, the word "myth" had morphed into basically meaning "not necessarily not true, but the word we use to describe religious stuff in a scientific context."

As noted in the article, Sally Kern tried to get this passed last year, but fortunately, it should be taken more seriously now that someone else is the principal author.


"I think people were afraid we were trying to open the door to not teaching science, and that's not true," Blackwell said. "This is just saying ... we want teacher to be able to teach all the spectrum of scientific information and let the students respond in kind."

I think that this is fair, because you can tell teachers not to teach that religion is wrong or inferior to scientific explanations, but they inevitably will anyway, much like you can tell kids to keep their prayers outta school functions, but they inevitably will anyway.

Thoughts?

[KantoSooner]

if it turns into an epistomology/faith type debate, it'll lead the brighter of the class to Spinoza and his eminently wise position.
And that ain't a bad thing.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Thoughts?

Pretty goddamn stupid if you ask me.

[Curly Bill]

Debate? Yes, that is a good thing.

[okie52]

Pretty goddamn stupid if you ask me.

Did you read the article?


The measure restricts students to looking into alternative scientific evidence, not philosophy or religion, he said.

He11, I would hope they would teach that with every theory.

[diverdog]

Did you read the article?



He11, I would hope they would teach that with every theory.

Here is my problem with the entire creationism vs evolution debate. The Christian right will never allow a full blown debate on the bible or creationism or god in the schools. It is fine to shred evolution but tearing down religion is a non-starter. If wide open scientific debate were allowed sans politics then I would be all for a scientific discussion on evolution and creationism.

[jumperstop]

There is still a debate? Evolution is basically fact. Believe whatever you want, but if it contradicts what is scientific fact then your stupid. You can argue all day in your paper that your religion proves evolution wrong, but you won't be able to scientifically prove that. This is just making it ok for people to grow up religiously stupid and saying "Well ok, we'll let them believe what they want..." and not being able to fail them for it. I guess we always want to be known as the stupid religious state.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Did you read the article?

He11, I would hope they would teach that with every theory.

Sally Kern's name is attached to this bill which raises alarms.

[Turd_Ferguson]

There is still a debate? Evolution is basically fact.Why did you use the word, basically?

[jumperstop]

Why did you use the word, basically?

Just a technicality. Just like "Theory of Gravity"....If I said evolution was fact, which it is, the religious nutjobs would have jumped all over me.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Just a technicality. Just like "Theory of Gravity"....If I said evolution was fact, which it is, the religious nutjobs would have jumped all over me.Mmm hmmm.

[yermom]

it's not "fact" per se, but there sure is a lot of evidence supporting it

not even gravity is that well explained...

[Midtowner]

There should be no discussion of religious myths in science class. Sorry.

[Turd_Ferguson]

it's not "fact" per se, but there sure is a lot of evidence supporting it

not even gravity is that well explained...Yeah well, it's not "fact" per se, but I have a mirror that will make my **** look 9" long...

[hawaii 5-0]

I like Sarah Palin's belief that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

5-0

[TUSooner]

it's not "fact" per se, but there sure is a lot of evidence supporting it

not even gravity is that well explained...

It's explained well enough to keep me away from open windows on the 10th floor. :)

[KantoSooner]

Yeah well, it's not "fact" per se, but I have a mirror that will make my **** look 9" long...

You don't have a 9" dong?

I'm sorry. Dr. Ong's in Singapore can change that for you, you know.

[okie52]

Here is my problem with the entire creationism vs evolution debate. The Christian right will never allow a full blown debate on the bible or creationism or god in the schools. It is fine to shred evolution but tearing down religion is a non-starter. If wide open scientific debate were allowed sans politics then I would be all for a scientific discussion on evolution and creationism.

I don't see where creationism would ever be allowed to be discussed if the student can't provide scientific evidence that would support it. If the approach is taken (and it probably already has) that there is to be no introduction of scientific evidence that would weaken the argument for evolution, global warming, etc...then that is pretty weak.

[jkjsooner]

I'd rather allow the teacher to discuss things such as irreducible complexity than allow students to Google religiously motivated anti evolution stuff and include in a paper.

I don't think most high school students are sophisticated enough to honestly debate peer reviewed and tested scientific theories. It's not the same as debating politics. I have a BSEE and I'm not sophisticated enough to challenge whatever I want to challenge or whatever doesn't fit my world view. What if a kid wanted to argue that his religion makes it impossible to believe that there is a relationship between electrical and magnetic fields?

Students should not have free reign to state that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics without being docked for misunderstanding the scientific principles.

[okie52]

I'd rather allow the teacher to discuss things such as irreducible complexity than allow students to Google religiously motivated anti evolution stuff and include in a paper.

I don't think most high school students are sophisticated enough to honestly debate peer reviewed and tested scientific theories. It's not the same as debating politics. I have a BSEE and I'm not sophisticated enough to challenge whatever I want to challenge or whatever doesn't fit my world view. What if a kid wanted to argue that his religion makes it impossible to believe that there is a relationship between electrical and magnetic fields?

Students should not have free reign to state that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics without being docked for misunderstanding the scientific principles.

If that is what the bill proposes then I would be against it but that was not the way I read it. As long as they are required to support their argument with scientific facts/data I don't have a problem with it. Irreducible complexity would be fine with me but that would be way out of my league. Maybe some HS genius has a grasp of it and could make a case for it. Chances are it would probably be out of his teachers league, too.

As long as their argument doesn't require a "leap of faith" and sticks to scientific positions then I'm good with it. I think a student should be failed if he doesn't provide sufficient science to back his argument.

[SoonerAtKU]

Irreducible Complexity isn't science, either. It's an admittance to a lack of understanding, which is fine, but there is no follow-up or attempt to re-define the question. Science is about questioning and constant curiosity. This argument is directly counter to the goals of science as a community and as an ideal.

[okie52]

Irreducible Complexity isn't science, either. It's an admittance to a lack of understanding, which is fine, but there is no follow-up or attempt to re-define the question. Science is about questioning and constant curiosity. This argument is directly counter to the goals of science as a community and as an ideal.

As I said its out of my pay grade. I have no idea what proponents of IC use as their evidence although it would be interesting to see how they would followup on the issue. But, it would seem that IC would fall into the questioning category. If they just stop there then they really haven't advanced their position.

[SoonerAtKU]

It's an argument that has a basis in stopping questions. It says that a sufficiently complex system that cannot be reduced without remaining functional must have been intelligently designed and must have come into being in that form. The common analogy is that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. The implication is that if you take out a piece of a watch, it no longer functions and therefore could not have evolved from a prior state, since that prior state would not function.

It's a fallacy of the highest order and it plays to the idea that we as humans feel that if something is outside of our current understanding it must then be impossible. It's arrogant and presumes we already know everything we need to know about the makeup of those structures or processes.

[jkjsooner]

Irreducible Complexity isn't science, either. It's an admittance to a lack of understanding, which is fine, but there is no follow-up or attempt to re-define the question. Science is about questioning and constant curiosity. This argument is directly counter to the goals of science as a community and as an ideal.

I used irreducible complexity as an example because I believe it is the only argument that creationists use that doesn't misrepresent scientific principles and is also a logically valid area of inquiry. In fact, any time something appears to be irreducibly complex, it's probably worth investigating to come up with theories that would explain why it may not be irreducible afterall.

That doesn't at all mean that apparent irreducible complexity disproves evolution. This is why I think the topic is best brought up by a teacher who fully understands the arguments and can put them in proper perspective. Is the topic science? Probably not but in today's climate I don't think we can completely ignore them. Obviously we can't give every wacky creationism theory time in a class but I think some discussion would help advance science education.

I agree with your criticism of irreducible complexity. The idea behind it and a lot of other anti-evolution arguments revolves around the unrealistic expectation that science must know every detail about every evolutionary step. (That is also true when arguing about the missing intermediary forms. No matter how many intermediate forms we find, there is always going to be a gap between one and the other.)

Take the bacteria flagellum. That is used as an example of irreducible complexity but science has found other cells that have a similar but less sophisticated structure that serves a different purpose. This could have very well been the precursor to the flagellum. But of course, creationists will come up with other forms that we don't have evidence for a precursor. To state that that disproves evolution is absurd. It is essentially expecting us to know everything about every step in the evolutionary process.

[jkjsooner]

Just a technicality. Just like "Theory of Gravity"....If I said evolution was fact, which it is, the religious nutjobs would have jumped all over me.

Agree with the general point but to be clear, the theory of gravity relates to theories such as the general relativity. Just wanted to clarify that that is a little different than, say, Newtons law of gravitation.

But to support your general point, the general "theory" of relativity is considered more complete than Newton's law of gravitation.

Wikipedia does a good job of differentiating the two:


Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

So, in many instances a theory is considered more complete than a law...

[ouflak]

Here is my problem with the entire creationism vs evolution debate. The Christian right will never allow a full blown debate on the bible or creationism or god in the schools. It is fine to shred evolution but tearing down religion is a non-starter. If wide open scientific debate were allowed sans politics then I would be all for a scientific discussion on evolution and creationism.

I think this is really the fundamental problem right here. If you, in a classroom, invite critical discourse on the rationality of a literal interpretation of creationism, you can (and will) be accused of being in league with the devil, of blasphemy, of trying to help bring about a Godless nation, etc, etc.... If you likewise invite critical discourse on the rationality of any interpretation of the theory of evolution, you are considered a logical thinker questioning a valid theory.

That is part of the nature of scientific theories (of anything). Scientific theories invite questioning, analysis, proof and all attempts to find such proof, and even attempts to to disprove, update, weaken or strengthen. Rarely will you hear creationism referred to as the Theory of Creationism. It is not meant to be a theory. It is meant to be Doctrine, unquestioned and accepted as Divine Fact. Hey I'm a pretty conservative Christian religiously, maybe even to a fault, but I also consider myself intensely scientific and rational. I detest this supposed debate between science and religion. It's so political. If you ask how God could have brought about the living world we see around us, study biology, paleontology, and evolution. In these things you find the hints and glimmers of *actual evidence* of infinite detail, subtle management, wondrous creativity and design. In my opinion, God did not give us the ability to question everything, even the reality we see around us, just so we would end up taking a bunch of texts (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Torah, etc...) literally. He gave us this ability to question everything so that we would strive to know him more. If you want to know God, know science.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I think this is really the fundamental problem right here. If you, in a classroom, invite critical discourse on the rationality of a literal interpretation of creationism, you can (and will) be accused of being in league with the devil, of blasphemy, of trying to help bring about a Godless nation, etc, etc.... If you likewise invite critical discourse on the rationality of any interpretation of the theory of evolution, you are considered a logical thinker questioning a valid theory.

That is part of the nature of scientific theories (of anything). Scientific theories invite questioning, analysis, proof and all attempts to find such proof, and even attempts to to disprove, update, weaken or strengthen. Rarely will you hear creationism referred to as the Theory of Creationism. It is not meant to be a theory. It is meant to be Doctrine, unquestioned and accepted as Divine Fact. Hey I'm a pretty conservative Christian religiously, maybe even to a fault, but I'm also consider myself intensely scientific and rational. I detest this supposed debate between science and religion. It's so political. If you ask how God could have brought about the living world we see around us, study biology, paleontology, and evolution. In these things you find the hints and glimmers of *actual evidence* of infinite detail, subtle management, wondrous creativity and design. In my opinion, God did not give us the ability to question everything, even the reality we see around us, just so we would end up taking a bunch of texts (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Torah, etc...) literally. He gave us this ability to question everything so that we would strive to know him more. If you want to know God, know science.Great post.

[LiveLaughLove]

The discussion has focused on evolution. What about global warming? Are you a flat earther if you think the wailing and gnashing of teeth about it is way overblown?

Al Gore bought a mansion in Florida right on the ocean. Do you think he REALLY thinks the sea levels are about to rise 20 feet? If so, is he insane to spend that much money on a mansion that will be underwater?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

An interesting read. It uses the actual observed data, not computer modelling (which of course, is programmed with built-in biases). Of course, this guy could just be a flat earther also. I don't know.

[ouflak]

Well I just think we are still learning a lot more about meteorology, climatology, geography, and in particular historical meteorology. The earth has rarely been stable for very extended periods of time climate-wise. We've been really warm (peak of the dinosaurs), really cold (Iceball earth), there are loads of cycles, and cycles and periods within those cycles, and we're still figuring a lot of this stuff out.

20 - 30 years ago, it seemed a lot simpler. We finally had some decent (though rudimentary by today's standards) math to help us model the weather. We could just take a look at Venus and Mars and say, "Hey, look what happens if things go to an extreme. This is where we're headed!"
As time has gone by, and research has advanced considerably, we seem to have finally figured out that it's not so simple. We are in a warming period of a larger glaciation cycle. This seems to have something to do with the earth's orbit and sun's activity, though we are still getting heads around all of this. On a larger scale (millions of years), the earth is actually in a rather cool period and a fairly calm period geographically. On a larger scale than that (millions to billions of years), the sun is getting warmer and the moon is slowly moving away and the earth itself is cooling internally. From our studies of the earth's climate going back to nearly its beginning, we have seen that it has been peppered with brief 'bursts' of rather dramatic cooling and heating, easily observable within the lifetime of a human. Yet life seemed to carry through all of this. We can now even see that those other planets that we'd used for comparison had far more interesting and unique pasts geologically than we'd earlier presumed.

There is no doubt that the earth is getting warmer right now, but it would in general probably be getting warmer anyway, with or without human influence, until we get back into the cooing period of this larger glaciation cycle. The earth's weather has always been changing long since before we showed up. And it will continue to change, in some cases radically, long after we are gone. Humans are likely affecting recent changes to some extent, maybe even to major extent, if you think on just a scale of decades. But on a larger scale, I think you do have to wonder if we are really more than just a drop in the bucket, one of those little 'bursts' that seem to come and go. And I frankly don't think that we are in so bad of a situation that we can't handle hit. As a species, we may suffer some losses and comfort here and there in the coming century, but I suspect that overall we will be just fine just like most other life that has survived through earths wild fluctuations. The hard decisions we have to make now, is how much of a short-term influence are we willing to have? How much wacky weather and decreased living space are we willing accept for ourselves and the next 3 or 4 generations of us that are going to have to live with these decisions?

This is where things have gotten confused in the schools and in politics. It used to be a simple black and white issue. "The earth is turning into Venus!" versus "No it isn't you scaremonger! Prove it!". It's turned out to be a lot more complicated than that, and we still have a lot more to learn. But the schools and politics haven't caught up with that reality yet. They are all still polarized despite the fact that the situation is no longer such where taking one 'side' or another is truly applicable.

[sappstuf]

Well I just think we are still learning a lot more about meteorology, climatology, geography, and in particular historical meteorology. The earth has rarely been stable for very extended periods of time climate-wise. We've been really warm (peak of the dinosaurs), really cold (Iceball earth), there are loads of cycles, and cycles and periods within those cycles, and we're still figuring a lot of this stuff out.

20 - 30 years ago, it seemed a lot simpler. We finally had some decent (though rudimentary by today's standards) math to help us model the weather. We could just take a look at Venus and Mars and say, "Hey, look what happens if things go to an extreme. This is where we're headed!"
As time has gone by, and research has advanced considerably, we seem to have finally figured out that it's not so simple. We are in a warming period of a larger glaciation cycle. This seems to have something to do with the earth's orbit and sun's activity, though we are still getting heads around all of this. On a larger scale (millions of years), the earth is actually in a rather cool period and a fairly calm period geographically. On a larger scale than that (millions to billions of years), the sun is getting warmer and the moon is slowly moving away and the earth itself is cooling internally. From our studies of the earth's climate going back to nearly its beginning, we have seen that it has been peppered with brief 'bursts' of rather dramatic cooling and heating, easily observable within the lifetime of a human. Yet life seemed to carry through all of this. We can now even see that those other planets that we'd used for comparison had far more interesting and unique pasts geologically than we'd earlier presumed.

There is no doubt that the earth is getting warmer right now, but it would in general probably be getting warmer anyway, with or without human influence, until we get back into the cooing period of this larger glaciation cycle. The earth's weather has always been changing long since before we showed up. And it will continue to change, in some cases radically, long after we are gone. Humans are likely affecting recent changes to some extent, maybe even to major extent, if you think on just a scale of decades. But on a larger scale, I think you do have to wonder if we are really more than just a drop in the bucket, one of those little 'bursts' that seem to come and go. And I frankly don't think that we are in so bad of a situation that we can't handle hit. As a species, we may suffer some losses and comfort here and there in the coming century, but I suspect that overall we will be just fine just like most other life that has survived through earths wild fluctuations. The hard decisions we have to make now, is how much of a short-term influence are we willing to have? How much wacky weather and decreased living space are we willing accept for ourselves and the next 3 or 4 generations of us that are going to have to live with these decisions?

This is where things have gotten confused in the schools and in politics. It used to be a simple black and white issue. "The earth is turning into Venus!" versus "No it isn't you scaremonger! Prove it!". It's turned out to be a lot more complicated than that, and we still have a lot more to learn. But the schools and politics haven't caught up with that reality yet. They are all still polarized despite the fact that the situation is no longer such where taking one 'side' or another is truly applicable.

Really?

This is straight from the HADCRUT3 website...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

It would appear since about 2002 there should be significant doubt..

There is a reason the climategate emails talked about a need to "hide the decline" and even more explicit "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

[virginiasooner]

Great post.

Ditto. The best book on the Dover, PA creationism case is "Monkey Girl". It portrays the creationists as a bunch of ignoramuses. The creationists, for all their "morality" were also a world-class liars.

[KantoSooner]

I think flak pretty well nailed it. We all can agree that dumping exhaust gases into the air, pumping untreated sewage (or concentrated brine from desalination plants, etc) into the water or filling in valleys with trash and solid waste is a bad idea. It's really as simple as littering. It's just wrong.
But is that causing a global warming effect? Is there, in fact, a global warming effect? The case for the latter is probably stronger than for the former, but both questions are at least formally still open.
And, finally, what should be done?
And here is where perfect is in danger of being the enemy of good enough or of simply good.
I don't want to crush our economy, but I think we ought to compelled to sort our trash for recycling (I did it for 20 years overseas. it takes about a month to get used to and then you don't think about it), I have no problem with emission controls on cars and mileage requirements, but don't feel we should attempt to lead the world into a carbonless future (unless, of course, somebody out at Livermore has gotten that fusion thingie to work, in which case, yahoo, and Let's Build Fusion Plants!.
The point, I should think, now is to do what we can (and there's lots out there) to be good stewards and generally clean people, while we continue to discuss and build more accurate data.

[ouflak]

Really?

Yeah, really. There's not much doubt that the earth is warming. Is some of it part of a naturally occurring process that seems to be represented well in consistent geological/meteorlogical research? Probably yes. Is some of that warming due to human activity? In my opinion, probably yes. Is the world going to turn into Venus and all life as we know end? Almost certainly not. Are things going to maybe get a bit dicey as far as the weather is concerned and our ability to live comfortably? It would seem so, but I don't think we'll be going extinct or anything crazy like that and history would seem to be on our side on this. We now know that the this plant has been through all sorts of climatic shifts due to reasons we can figure out, and some shifts (perhaps most) due to reasons that will likely always remain speculation. Sometimes some of those shifts in global climate have been so fast as to occur within a period of decades. Again, this isn't speculation. This is hard science; historical meteorology supported by sound geological research. We also know that earth seemd to make it through just fine, with most of the fauna before those events somehow pulling through to make it after. There were certainly casualties and some extinctions, but the planet just kept on spinning.

We are probably going through another one of those abrupt climatological shifts right now. The data you posted would seem to support that. Where people have become radicalized is in the belief that we are somehow going to destroy planet within the next fifty years or some such silliness. It's clear that while we may change things, and even change things to an extent to where they will have a negative on our society and on other species, the earth is well-proven survivor. She has gone through bigger changes than we are introducing, in far more catastrophic circumstances, and managed to find that balance to sustain new diversity.

I just don't think we need to worry about the earth. We need to look at our society and our future society and decide what we are willing to trade and how much. How much carbon-whatever are we willing to pump into the atmosphere for energy needs/desires now, in exchange for some nasty weather 40 years from now? Our society(ies) have cleary made some determination already. There are laws in the U.S., throughout Europe, and even in South America and a few Asian countries that are already putting the clamp down on certain air-polluting aspects of our world. So it's obvious we've already made some decision on just how much future world stability we are willing to exchange for comfort and progress now.

Politicians and schools are having to catch with the complexities involved. It's just not the black and white issue it used to be when we knew a LOT less about how the earth's systems work.

[AlboSooner]

Oklahoma won't get credit for this, but this is an open-minded, scientific-friendly bill, that will make our students smarter in the long run.

The pseudo-scientific fanatics, and the dogmatic evolutionists will probably not be happy with this bill.

[AlboSooner]

Yeah, really. There's not much doubt that the earth is warming. Is some of it part of a naturally occurring process that seems to be represented well in consistent geological/meteorlogical research? Probably yes. Is some of that warming due to human activity? In my opinion, probably yes. Is the world going to turn into Venus and all life as we know end? Almost certainly not. Are things going to maybe get a bit dicey as far as the weather is concerned and our ability to live comfortably? It would seem so, but I don't think we'll be going extinct or anything crazy like that and history would seem to be on our side on this. We now know that the this plant has been through all sorts of climatic shifts due to reasons we can figure out, and some shifts (perhaps most) due to reasons that will likely always remain speculation. Sometimes some of those shifts in global climate have been so fast as to occur within a period of decades. Again, this isn't speculation. This is hard science; historical meteorology supported by sound geological research. We also know that earth seemd to make it through just fine, with most of the fauna before those events somehow pulling through to make it after. There were certainly casualties and some extinctions, but the planet just kept on spinning.

We are probably going through another one of those abrupt climatological shifts right now. The data you posted would seem to support that. Where people have become radicalized is in the belief that we are somehow going to destroy planet within the next fifty years or some such silliness. It's clear that while we may change things, and even change things to an extent to where they will have a negative on our society and on other species, the earth is well-proven survivor. She has gone through bigger changes than we are introducing, in far more catastrophic circumstances, and managed to find that balance to sustain new diversity.

I just don't think we need to worry about the earth. We need to look at our society and our future society and decide what we are willing to trade and how much. How much carbon-whatever are we willing to pump into the atmosphere for energy needs/desires now, in exchange for some nasty weather 40 years from now? Our society(ies) have cleary made some determination already. There are laws in the U.S., throughout Europe, and even in South America and a few Asian countries that are already putting the clamp down on certain air-polluting aspects of our world. So it's obvious we've already made some decision on just how much future world stability we are willing to exchange for comfort and progress now.

Politicians and schools are having to catch with the complexities involved. It's just not the black and white issue it used when we knew a LOT less about how the earth's systems work.

Well stated sir.

[AlboSooner]

As I said its out of my pay grade. I have no idea what proponents of IC use as their evidence although it would be interesting to see how they would followup on the issue. But, it would seem that IC would fall into the questioning category. If they just stop there then they really haven't advanced their position.

The IC is not a lack of understanding. IC makes this point: no matter much we know about the biochemical make up of organisms, we do not see in nature that any part can exist without the whole. On the contrary, we observe in nature that already well-formed mechanisms function with purpose, efficiency, and an intrinsic intelligence, that if you remove any step or any part the mechanism would fail.

Let's say the mechanism as a whole loses the ability of something as simple as small as the removal of an amine group from 5-methylcytosine. Keep every other biochemical process steady, just take away the deamination of 5-methylcytosine. Suddenly thymine can't be produced, and this means no DNA.
No DNA means no life.

[AlboSooner]

It's an argument that has a basis in stopping questions. It says that a sufficiently complex system that cannot be reduced without remaining functional must have been intelligently designed and must have come into being in that form. The common analogy is that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. The implication is that if you take out a piece of a watch, it no longer functions and therefore could not have evolved from a prior state, since that prior state would not function.

It's a fallacy of the highest order and it plays to the idea that we as humans feel that if something is outside of our current understanding it must then be impossible. It's arrogant and presumes we already know everything we need to know about the makeup of those structures or processes.

The watch analogy is for the non-science types. There are specific biochemical process that we understand very well. But evolution, cannot be creator and a process as the same time. That makes no sense. It's the ultimate pseudo-scientific cop-out, when presented with a well-researched dilemma, people just say "well evolution...."

Science deals with what we can observance in nature. In nature we observe, even in "simple" organisms like archea, there is a specific biochemical mechanism, an intrinsically intelligent mechanism, a purposeful chemistry of life, that if any elementary part is removed the whole system collapses. This amount of specificity, and this fact of irreducible complexity, goes even to the degree angle between two bonded chemical elements. A hydrogen has to be covalently bound to a water molecule at an 104.5 degree angle. If not, the molecule would not be possible to exist as it is observed in nature. Something as simple was a water molecule, could not exist if you take any of these factors away: size of oxygen atom and hydrogen atom, number of electrons, electric dipole, bonding angle, and so son. Not only water never forms, but every other macromolecules, as water chemistry is the basis for life.

[jkjsooner]

The IC is not a lack of understanding. IC makes this point: no matter much we know about the biochemical make up of organisms, we do not see in nature that any part can exist without the whole. On the contrary, we observe in nature that already well-formed mechanisms function with purpose, efficiency, and an intrinsic intelligence, that if you remove any step or any part the mechanism would fail.

First off, we know what IC is. Nothing you said above differs from our explanation of it.

But ultimately the "irreducible" claim is about a lack of understanding. Many of the early examples given by creationists have been refuted by scientists who have found reducible forms that serve a useful purpose for the less complex organism. In many cases the purpose is completely different than the purpose of the more complex machinery.

Creationists would have us believe that had these intermediary forms not been found then they couldn't have possibly existed. That is an impossible hurdle for science to climb.


Another example is the evolution of the eye. For a long time this was perplexing and seemed to be irreducibly complex. Further studies have shown that this is in fact not the case. Even a simple depression in the surface with a bundle of nerves could be used as a rudimentary light detection mechanism.

[OhU1]

Intelligent design and I.C. are not scientific concepts. I.D. makes no predictions and is not falsifiable. It attempts to explain the natural world in terms of untestable supernatural causation - by definition this is religion not science. There is no I.D. empirical research and no peer reviewed scientific publications. I.D. proponents do not appear at scientific conferences to subject their "hypothesis" to questioning by the scientific community. Actual real working scientists do not take I.D. and I.C seriously, there is no reason to as the "hypothesis" is not compelling and at base is an argument from ignorance.

[LiveLaughLove]

Actual real working scientists do not take I.D. and I.C seriously, there is no reason to as the "hypothesis" is not compelling and at base is an argument from ignorance.

You know, I had always heard liberals were dismissive and condescending to conservative views, and consider them nothing but redneck views. I don't think I actually believed that, because I had liberal professors and they were for the most part, open to talking and vigorous debate (of course that was 25-30 years ago too). Most of you on here however, are very dismissive and condescending. If you went to OU, mores the pity and maybe Boren isn't doing such a good job at picking his professors, if this pompous close mindedness is the result.

Here are a few scientists that think you are, well, ignorant I guess (for sure, you will dismiss them as being ignorant or irrelevant or not on topic or something else I have no doubt):

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

[Midtowner]

(from wikipedia)


The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[27] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[148] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[149] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1080 Steves as of March 26, 2009. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[150] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[151]

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[152] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution according to the Discovery Institute,[153] a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.[citation needed]


So .1% or .01% depending on the subset you look at. Man, that list is compelling as heckfire! I mean, mathematicians and linguists are your experts in creation science. Good stuff!

[OhU1]

You know, I had always heard liberals were dismissive and condescending to conservative views, and consider them nothing but redneck views. I don't think I actually believed that, because I had liberal professors and they were for the most part, open to talking and vigorous debate (of course that was 25-30 years ago too). Most of you on here however, are very dismissive and condescending. If you went to OU, mores the pity and maybe Boren isn't doing such a good job at picking his professors, if this pompous close mindedness is the result.

Here are a few scientists that think you are, well, ignorant I guess (for sure, you will dismiss them as being ignorant or irrelevant or not on topic or something else I have no doubt):


At the risk of sounding condescending LLL you do not seem to understand what an "argument from ignorance" is. Hint: it is not an insult directed at an opponent and calling him ignorant and stupid (though he may very well be). An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. I.D. is primarily an argument from incredulity - It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

Having a Ph.D or a degree in mathematics does not make a person a working scientist or an expert in a field of study. Looks like a lot of these Ph.Ds are from diploma mills anyway. I see a few dentists listed, and at least one vet. Interesting. Are the people you listed scientists actively working and publishing in fields directly related to biology? Do they publish their evidence for creation (or against evolution)? I'd like to see that. You need to look at not how many scientists and professors believe something but what their conviction is based on. Most scientists who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

I don't get what the pejorative term "liberal" has to do about a scientific topic. The search for what is objectively true about the natural world has nothing to do with petty partisan concerns.

[Turd_Ferguson]

At the risk of sounding condescending LLL you do not seem to understand what an "argument from ignorance" is. Hint: it is not an insult directed at an opponent and calling him ignorant and stupid (though he may very well be). An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. I.D. is primarily an argument from incredulity - It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

Having a Ph.D or a degree in mathematics does not make a person a working scientist or an expert in a field of study. Are the people you listed scientists actively working and publishing in fields directly related to biology? Do they publish their evidence for creation (or against evolution)? I'd like to see that. You need to look at not how many scientists and professors believe something but what their conviction is based on. Most scientists who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

I don't get what the pejorative term "liberal" has to do about a scientific topic. The search for what is objectively true about the natural world has nothing to do with petty partisan concerns.Yeah, so what's your point?

[hawaii 5-0]

I like the color purple and I quit eating crayons.


5-0

[LiveLaughLove]

Thanks to you all for being as dismissive as I said you would be. I know not all of those scientists are in the actual field. There are plenty of scientists on that list that would more than qualify to speak on creation and the beginnings of the universe in a scientific manner and you know that. Are they ignorant? I would hazard to say they have more education than any of you. Are they just not as erudite as yourselves? Are they just blinded by the big guy in the sky? the spaghetti monster? What is it that causes these educated scientists to reach such ignorant conclusions as to creation?

I am not saying that ID should be taught, btw. There's nothing to teach. It's a belief system and I readily acknowledge that. What I vehemently disagree with however, is the leap that atheistic teachers jump to in telling our kids that their science proves that no God could have made all of this. That's overstepping from teaching to spouting theology of it's own that has no basis in fact. I would support laws banning the mention of God one way or another in science classes.

My daughter is in forensic sciences at UCO. She is in a class called Evolution. She has to pass it, so she will with flying colors. I have no problem with them teaching that. I have no problem with her learning it. If her professor ever says, therefore we can conclude that there is no God, she knows better. Younger children might not be able to understand that teachers can be idiots and think everything they say is (for lack of a better word) gospel.

[yermom]

i'd be all for not mentioning God one way or another until 18

you know, once someone is old enough to know better, as you say

[OhU1]

Thanks to you all for being as dismissive as I said you would be. I know not all of those scientists are in the actual field. There are plenty of scientists on that list that would more than qualify to speak on creation and the beginnings of the universe in a scientific manner and you know that. Are they ignorant? I would hazard to say they have more education than any of you. Are they just not as erudite as yourselves? Are they just blinded by the big guy in the sky? the spaghetti monster? What is it that causes these educated scientists to reach such ignorant conclusions as to creation?

I am not saying that ID should be taught, btw. There's nothing to teach. It's a belief system and I readily acknowledge that. What I vehemently disagree with however, is the leap that atheistic teachers jump to in telling our kids that their science proves that no God could have made all of this. That's overstepping from teaching to spouting theology of it's own that has no basis in fact. I would support laws banning the mention of God one way or another in science classes.

My daughter is in forensic sciences at UCO. She is in a class called Evolution. She has to pass it, so she will with flying colors. I have no problem with them teaching that. I have no problem with her learning it. If her professor ever says, therefore we can conclude that there is no God, she knows better. Younger children might not be able to understand that teachers can be idiots and think everything they say is (for lack of a better word) gospel.

LLL, evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. I agree that any teacher making such a statement regarding conclusions about god is stepping out of bounds. That is that person's opinion. BTW opinion polls indicate 58% of Catholics accept evolution, 51% of mainline protestants, and even 1/4 of evangelical protestants accept evolution. Kenneth R. Miller an evolution expert for the Plaintiff in the I.D. case of Kitsmiller v. Dover is Christian as are many other scientists. Atheist/evolution, Christian/creationism are false dichotomies.

[jkjsooner]

Atheist/evolution, Christian/creationism are false dichotomies.

For the most part this is true except for those who take a purely literal approach to the bible and believe the world is 6000 years old.

As for LLL's last post, I'd bet most biology professors would be happy to keep religion and science separate. I'd bet you would be hard pressed to find any high school teachers who would dare touch that subject. They don't want to tell you how to believe. They simply don't want your belief taught in their science class.

[SoonerLaw09]

It's really very silly and unfortunate that a bill like this has to be passed in the first place. Science is all about inquiry and discovery. Breakthroughs occur when "accepted norms" are challenged and either confirmed or refuted. People seem to forget that Darwin challenged the accepted norms of his generation when he published his research. Why was that okay, and it's not okay for the new "accepted norm" of evolution to be challenged? Squashing inquiry is not science, it's quasi-religious dogma. Likewise Galileo.

Another example: up until the early 20th century, the accepted cosmological model was the steady-state theory; i.e., that the universe was eternal. Then, along came Edwin Hubble (among others) and proved that the universe had a beginning, and the Big Bang theory is now the accepted norm. Also, physicists are now in the process of challenging Einstein's theories, and we may well have a breakthrough in that area soon. What does all this mean? It means that real science allows itself to be questioned.

Science does its job when it sticks to describing how stuff works, and stays away from metaphysical arguments. Bottom line is, no human was present when the universe began, nor were we around when the earth was formed. Ergo, any human description of how those things occurred is pure speculation and unfalsifiable. The evolutionists will rail up and down that ID is "unfalsifiable" and is therefore not science, but their theory of origins suffers the same fate. It's the intellectual dishonesty by otherwise incredibly smart people that really frosts me. As a Christian I believe that we have enough of an explanation of "the Beginning" from Genesis, though I must point out that not all Christians agree that Genesis 1-2 was intended to describe historical events. Some argue that it's just a poetic metaphor designed to show the Israelites why their Sabbath occurs once a week. That's what we call an in-house debate. Once a scientist goes from "this evidence supports natural selection" to "there is no God", he's gone beyond the realm of science.

BTW, as an exercise, try reading Genesis 1 and look at it from the perspective of someone standing on the Earth. Ignore the time statements and just look at the sequence of events. You'll find that the sequence parallels what the evolutionists say took place during the formation of life on earth, all those "billions" of years ago:

1 - Formless and void (nothing to see here); a planet basically covered in "water", or "primordial soup"; then suddenly a flash! light.
2 - Sky. Atmosphere forms, thick cloud cover (many scientists think that Earth looked a lot like Venus when it was young)
3 - Tectonic shifts; dry land appears. There's a ton of moisture in the air. Eventually, plants start to grow, first microscopic ones, then larger.
4 - The vegetation begins to produce Oxygen which kick-starts the water cycle. Lots of rain, thunderstorms. The clouds clear after a time, and the sun appears! You can see the moon and stars at night now.
5 - Sea creatures and birds begin to appear, lower forms of animal life
6 - Finally, more complex life, and at last, people

Interesting, no?

[AlboSooner]

First off, we know what IC is. Nothing you said above differs from our explanation of it.

But ultimately the "irreducible" claim is about a lack of understanding. Many of the early examples given by creationists have been refuted by scientists who have found reducible forms that serve a useful purpose for the less complex organism. In many cases the purpose is completely different than the purpose of the more complex machinery.

Creationists would have us believe that had these intermediary forms not been found then they couldn't have possibly existed. That is an impossible hurdle for science to climb.


Another example is the evolution of the eye. For a long time this was perplexing and seemed to be irreducibly complex. Further studies have shown that this is in fact not the case. Even a simple depression in the surface with a bundle of nerves could be used as a rudimentary light detection mechanism.

It doesn't matter how much we understand of each individual part, the system works because the parts must exist at the same time. I don't know your scientific background, but it is hard for me to stand here and explain from zero how we constructed all biochemistry based on elementary knowledge of atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, and even quarks. It is not a lack of understanding. We understand how each part functions, but what we observe in nature is the fact that the whole cannot exist without all the parts being together.

IC doesn't stop anybody from researching more. It's just a claim on what we observe in nature. To reject what is observed in nature based on fantasy, is a claim to ignorance. "Oh I know that all we have ever observed obeys these physical rules we have, but you never know what might be discovered later." That's what you basically said.

Please don't muddy the water with theories about formation of the eye, and other things.


Many of the early examples given by creationists have been refuted by scientists who have found reducible forms that serve a useful purpose for the less complex organism. In many cases the purpose is completely different than the purpose of the more complex machinery.


Like?

[AlboSooner]

It's really very silly and unfortunate that a bill like this has to be passed in the first place. Science is all about inquiry and discovery. Breakthroughs occur when "accepted norms" are challenged and either confirmed or refuted. People seem to forget that Darwin challenged the accepted norms of his generation when he published his research. Why was that okay, and it's not okay for the new "accepted norm" of evolution to be challenged? Squashing inquiry is not science, it's quasi-religious dogma. Likewise Galileo.

Another example: up until the early 20th century, the accepted cosmological model was the steady-state theory; i.e., that the universe was eternal. Then, along came Edwin Hubble (among others) and proved that the universe had a beginning, and the Big Bang theory is now the accepted norm. Also, physicists are now in the process of challenging Einstein's theories, and we may well have a breakthrough in that area soon. What does all this mean? It means that real science allows itself to be questioned.

Science does its job when it sticks to describing how stuff works, and stays away from metaphysical arguments. Bottom line is, no human was present when the universe began, nor were we around when the earth was formed. Ergo, any human description of how those things occurred is pure speculation and unfalsifiable. The evolutionists will rail up and down that ID is "unfalsifiable" and is therefore not science, but their theory of origins suffers the same fate. It's the intellectual dishonesty by otherwise incredibly smart people that really frosts me. As a Christian I believe that we have enough of an explanation of "the Beginning" from Genesis, though I must point out that not all Christians agree that Genesis 1-2 was intended to describe historical events. Some argue that it's just a poetic metaphor designed to show the Israelites why their Sabbath occurs once a week. That's what we call an in-house debate. Once a scientist goes from "this evidence supports natural selection" to "there is no God", he's gone beyond the realm of science.

BTW, as an exercise, try reading Genesis 1 and look at it from the perspective of someone standing on the Earth. Ignore the time statements and just look at the sequence of events. You'll find that the sequence parallels what the evolutionists say took place during the formation of life on earth, all those "billions" of years ago:

1 - Formless and void (nothing to see here); a planet basically covered in "water", or "primordial soup"; then suddenly a flash! light.
2 - Sky. Atmosphere forms, thick cloud cover (many scientists think that Earth looked a lot like Venus when it was young)
3 - Tectonic shifts; dry land appears. There's a ton of moisture in the air. Eventually, plants start to grow, first microscopic ones, then larger.
4 - The vegetation begins to produce Oxygen which kick-starts the water cycle. Lots of rain, thunderstorms. The clouds clear after a time, and the sun appears! You can see the moon and stars at night now.
5 - Sea creatures and birds begin to appear, lower forms of animal life
6 - Finally, more complex life, and at last, people

Interesting, no?

What? Stick to law.

[jkjsooner]

It doesn't matter how much we understand of each individual part, the system works because the parts must exist at the same time.

That's your claim. That's not the claim of science. Yes, you can remove a part and some things will stop working but that doesn't at all mean there wasn't a path to get from A to B with minor changes along the way.




I've taken courses in chemistry andseveral in physics (including quantum mechanics). I don't need you to start from the quark and work your way up. I doubt you could do that anyway.
That's not at all relevant to the conversation other than you trying to thump your chest.

Do I know as much about biochem as you do? Absolutely not. Do I know enough to argue this with you? Absolutely. I know at least enough to know that most biochemists do not hold your views.

[quote]Please don't muddy the water with theories about formation of the eye, and other things.

Yes, please, just keep assuming it is not only complex but irreducible...


Like?

The bacteria flagellum

Wasn't that the gold standard for IC proponents. There are scores of academic work that explains the evolution of such a machinery.


And, by the way, just because removing a part would cause something to cease to function does not mean it couldn't have evolved. You would have to say that removing ANY part would make it cease to function. In the case of the flagellum, you can remove parts and while it no longer acts as a rotor it still had a function that would favor the organism.

[jkjsooner]

To reject what is observed in nature based on fantasy, is a claim to ignorance.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about but I'm going to take a guess.

IC proponents claim that the evolution of a part could not have occured. To counter this all one would need to do is show an evolutionary path that could have possible lead from the start to the finish. They don't have to prove that that was in fact what happened. By showing that it's possible disproves the fundamental concept of IC.

[OhU1]

BTW, as an exercise, try reading Genesis 1 and look at it from the perspective of someone standing on the Earth. Ignore the time statements and just look at the sequence of events. You'll find that the sequence parallels what the evolutionists say took place during the formation of life on earth, all those "billions" of years ago:

1 - Formless and void (nothing to see here); a planet basically covered in "water", or "primordial soup"; then suddenly a flash! light.
2 - Sky. Atmosphere forms, thick cloud cover (many scientists think that Earth looked a lot like Venus when it was young)
3 - Tectonic shifts; dry land appears. There's a ton of moisture in the air. Eventually, plants start to grow, first microscopic ones, then larger.
4 - The vegetation begins to produce Oxygen which kick-starts the water cycle. Lots of rain, thunderstorms. The clouds clear after a time, and the sun appears! You can see the moon and stars at night now.
5 - Sea creatures and birds begin to appear, lower forms of animal life
6 - Finally, more complex life, and at last, people

Interesting, no? Interesting - no. It might be interesting if it were even remotely close to what modern cosmology, geology, and biology have revealed about the natural world in the 2,500 since this mythological account was written. (1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. This account simply can't be rescued by ad hoc spin. Poetic metaphor or creation myth account is where this should be left.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Interesting - no. It might be interesting if it were even remotely close to what modern cosmology, geology, and biology have revealed about the natural world in the 2,500 since this mythological account was written. (1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. This account simply can't be rescued by ad hoc spin. Poetic metaphor or creation myth account is where this should be left.Have you read the Bible?

[OhU1]

Have you read the Bible? A good deal of it in the past. You?

[SoonerLaw09]

Interesting - no. It might be interesting if it were even remotely close to what modern cosmology, geology, and biology have revealed about the natural world in the 2,500 since this mythological account was written. (1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. This account simply can't be rescued by ad hoc spin. Poetic metaphor or creation myth account is where this should be left.

I figured someone wouldn't read my post closely. I said from the perspective of someone standing on the earth. Not from God's perspective. From man's. If someone were standing on the earth, and they couldn't see the sun and stars because of the thick cloud cover, they would not realize they were there until the clouds cleared up. Such a person might very well assume that the sun and stars had just then appeared out of nowhere. And the order of the plants and animals goes generally from lower order to higher. And I said to ignore the time statements.

[SoonerLaw09]

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about but I'm going to take a guess.

IC proponents claim that the evolution of a part could not have occured. To counter this all one would need to do is show an evolutionary path that could have possible lead from the start to the finish. They don't have to prove that that was in fact what happened. By showing that it's possible disproves the fundamental concept of IC.

So basically the argument is whether the so-called "evolutionary path" is possible. I think this is exactly the point upon which IC proponents take issue with you.

[SoonerLaw09]

What? Stick to law.

I don't even have the foggiest idea what you mean. Because I'm a lawyer I'm not entitled to talk about this stuff?

[OhU1]

I figured someone wouldn't read my post closely. I said from the perspective of someone standing on the earth. Not from God's perspective. From man's. If someone were standing on the earth, and they couldn't see the sun and stars because of the thick cloud cover, they would not realize they were there until the clouds cleared up. Such a person might very well assume that the sun and stars had just then appeared out of nowhere. And the order of the plants and animals goes generally from lower order to higher. And I said to ignore the time statements.

Ok, fair enough. BTW there was no time when man existed on Earth that you could not look up and see the stars "because of thick cloud cover". Other than that it appears you are saying that the creation story in Genesis makes sense and is understandable as a mythology written by ancient people. That would seem to defeat the point of a story being conveyed from the mind of God.

[jkjsooner]

So basically the argument is whether the so-called "evolutionary path" is possible. I think this is exactly the point upon which IC proponents take issue with you.

I know it is. It's also an issue that has been addressed many times in the scientific literature.

[SoonerLaw09]

Ok, fair enough. BTW there was no time when man existed on Earth that you could not look up and see the stars "because of thick cloud cover". Other than that it appears you are saying that the creation story in Genesis makes sense and is understandable as a mythology written by ancient people. That would seem to defeat the point of a story being conveyed from the mind of God.

I said nothing about it being a myth. I said that it was written in such a way as to convey certain ideas to the Israelites that they could understand. That does not render it false. For instance, take the poem Paul Revere's Ride by Longfellow. Longfellow admitted that he researched the actual events but took some artistic license with them for poetic effect and to create a more legendary tale. Now, does that mean that the actual event didn't happen? Of course not. The event was real. The way it was written about was dramatized. Moses did the same thing. You have to let the literature speak as it was intended, not try to put some notion of scientific accuracy on it. The Bible isn't a science book, and it's very old, but neither of those things have anything to do with whether it's true or not.


BTW there was no time when man existed on Earth that you could not look up and see the stars "because of thick cloud cover".

Yes, but except for Day 6, Genesis 1 relates the events which occurred before man's existence. Moses received a revelation from God that he passed on to his readers so they would know what it was like before. Moses probably also drew upon the oral tradition that had been passed down through the generations for some of his source material. I suppose you could say he was telling them "if you had been there at the beginning, this is what you would have seen."

[SoonerLaw09]

I know it is. It's also an issue that has been addressed many times in the scientific literature.

I would hope that "addressed" means honest academic discourse and not dogmatic dismissal of opposing viewpoints. To bring the discussion back around, I think that's the point of the bill in question.

[AlboSooner]

That's your claim. That's not the claim of science. Yes, you can remove a part and some things will stop working but that doesn't at all mean there wasn't a path to get from A to B with minor changes along the way.

Science works in the observable natural world. Once you include terms “that doesn’t mean X could have not happened” then you enter the area of philosophy and metaphysics. Science makes no metaphysical claims. Pseudo-science makes metaphysical claims, usually at the hands of atheistic zealots, who are on a crusade to erase anything theistic from everything. These zealots use their position in academia to advance their cause. That is not fair.


I've taken courses in chemistry andseveral in physics (including quantum mechanics). I don't need you to start from the quark and work your way up. I doubt you could do that anyway.That's not at all relevant to the conversation other than you trying to thump your chest.

I wasn’t trying to brag. That assertion is unfounded on facts. If two people have been trained in different fields then their knowledge about their respective fields varies, does it not? The relevancy comes that the more you know a field, the more apt you will be to understand it’s complexities. You dismiss it because this fact destroys your argument. You are a good debater, but the facts are not on your side.


Do I know as much about biochem as you do? Absolutely not. Do I know enough to argue this with you? Absolutely. I know at least enough to know that most biochemists do not hold your views.

Once again, I was not trying to brag. There are plenty of professors at OU who privately hold the same views as I do. One very v respected O-Chem professor, even let his tongue slip one time during lecture and said: look at this fantastic reaction, and some claim this happened by chance.



The bacteria flagellum. Wasn't that the gold standard for IC proponents. There are scores of academic work that explains the evolution of such a machinery.

Never heard of this debate. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. There are scores of academic works that say otherwise.



And, by the way, just because removing a part would cause something to cease to function does not mean it couldn't have evolved. You would have to say that removing ANY part would make it cease to function. In the case of the flagellum, you can remove parts and while it no longer acts as a rotor it still had a function that would favor the organism.

Once again, science deals with the observable empirical facts of nature. Anything could have happened in any type of way, but what is observed in nature and supported by science is the model I have presented. Even the best evolutionary explanations begin or end with an elementary mechanism that is complex and “just is.”

I understand you won’t change my mind, and I won’t change yours. However, only one side is being heard and passed as science, when the other side has compelling and scientific arguments as well. To prevent the other side from being heard is un-American, and akin to communist ideology, which ironically is based on atheism

[AlboSooner]

I don't even have the foggiest idea what you mean. Because I'm a lawyer I'm not entitled to talk about this stuff?

yes your are entitled to express your opinion. Your post touched many subjects that may or may not be connected, and when mixed like that does a certain injustice to each subject. :)

[SoonerAtKU]

Pseudo-science makes metaphysical claims...These zealots use their position in academia to advance their cause. That is not fair.Agreed
One very v respected O-Chem professor, even let his tongue slip one time during lecture and said: look at this fantastic reaction, and some claim this happened by chance.Wait, what was it you said about pseudo-science and zealots?

...the other side has compelling and scientific arguments as well.
What are the testable hypotheses that are on the other side? By definition, an argument without falsifiable and testable claims is not scientific. "God did it" is not scientific in any way and never will be. If you want to redefine the scientific method to include theories based on an omnipotent, omnipresent force undetectable by any means of measurement that could ever be, you've got a long climb ahead of you. I'd also wonder what benefit would be gained by an instructor being able to tell a class that he feels god created subatomic particles as his foundation to build the universe? What would one learn in that situation?

You're free as always in this country and in the free world to hold your opinions and beliefs close to you and your family. Let's not invoke the communist and atheist bugaboos who are so cleverly keeping you from attending church and communing with your faithful brethren. We just ask that you not bring it into science class, where we have people learning how to question in an effective and productive way.

[cccasooner2]

Bill passes House panel.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120221_336_0_OKLAHO325826)


Thoughts?

No thoughts, but what is the actual wording of the bill?

[jkjsooner]

Once again, science deals with the observable empirical facts of nature. Anything could have happened in any type of way, but what is observed in nature and supported by science is the model I have presented. Even the best evolutionary explanations begin or end with an elementary mechanism that is complex and “just is.”

Science does deal with observable facts but you can't expect science to observe or reproduce every single step in the evolutionary chain.

Giving plausible explanations for an evolutionary step doesn't prove anything. But, in light of the ID proponent's claims that something could not have happened, giving plausible steps is sufficient to counter those claims.

[SoonerLaw09]

AgreedWait, what was it you said about pseudo-science and zealots?

What are the testable hypotheses that are on the other side? By definition, an argument without falsifiable and testable claims is not scientific. "God did it" is not scientific in any way and never will be. If you want to redefine the scientific method to include theories based on an omnipotent, omnipresent force undetectable by any means of measurement that could ever be, you've got a long climb ahead of you. I'd also wonder what benefit would be gained by an instructor being able to tell a class that he feels god created subatomic particles as his foundation to build the universe? What would one learn in that situation?

You're free as always in this country and in the free world to hold your opinions and beliefs close to you and your family. Let's not invoke the communist and atheist bugaboos who are so cleverly keeping you from attending church and communing with your faithful brethren. We just ask that you not bring it into science class, where we have people learning how to question in an effective and productive way.

Where's the testable hypothesis that life just suddenly appeared on Earth? Where's the testable hypothesis that the universe just popped into existence?

Something's eternal. The question is...what? or Who? Stephen Hawking seems to think (nowadays) that the laws of physics are eternal. But if there's no matter or energy for those laws to act on, how can they exist? The point is there is no "testable hypothesis" here, no matter what your metaphysical point of view. It boils down to who has the more logical and rational worldview. It's not rational to simply dismiss the supernatural as an illegitmate answer, because science cannot and will never go there. Ergo, the question becomes did the universe create itself? Or did something or someone outside the universe create it? So far, all the science we've been able to muster tells us that the first option can't happen. The universe is one big effect. There has to be a cause. But human science, being trapped inside the effect, will never ever find the cause on its own. And it needs to stop trying.

[Ike]

Where's the testable hypothesis that the universe just popped into existence?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas_spectrum.jpg

In case you are wondering, the data points with error bars are obscured by the theoretical curve. The theoretical curve comes from the big bang model.

[SoonerLaw09]

In case you are wondering, the data points with error bars are obscured by the theoretical curve. The theoretical curve comes from the big bang model.

I have no problem with the big bang model. I submit that it in fact supports divine creation ex nihilo.

[Ike]

It certainly doesn't disallow it. But you asked for a testable hypothesis, and the many big bang models make many predictions as to what we should see in the universe. Some of them, like the CMB, have been verified quite well.

[Ike]

Where's the testable hypothesis that life just suddenly appeared on Earth? Where's the testable hypothesis that the universe just popped into existence?

Something's eternal. The question is...what? or Who? Stephen Hawking seems to think (nowadays) that the laws of physics are eternal. But if there's no matter or energy for those laws to act on, how can they exist? The point is there is no "testable hypothesis" here, no matter what your metaphysical point of view. It boils down to who has the more logical and rational worldview. It's not rational to simply dismiss the supernatural as an illegitmate answer, because science cannot and will never go there. Ergo, the question becomes did the universe create itself? Or did something or someone outside the universe create it? So far, all the science we've been able to muster tells us that the first option can't happen. The universe is one big effect. There has to be a cause. But human science, being trapped inside the effect, will never ever find the cause on its own. And it needs to stop trying.

Cause and effect is so 19th century....:) God does play dice. All the time.

[SoonerLaw09]

It certainly doesn't disallow it. But you asked for a testable hypothesis, and the many big bang models make many predictions as to what we should see in the universe. Some of them, like the CMB, have been verified quite well.

Yes, you're right of course. I worded my question poorly, but you answered what I asked. :) I already knew about the CMB and I find it really fascinating even though I don't understand half of what I read on the subject. :P I suppose I should have said "popped into existence without any external forces acting to produce the effect", or some such. Anyway, the point I was attempting to make was that there is no testable hypothesis for what took place prior to the big bang.

[SoonerLaw09]

God does play dice. All the time.

According to Orthodox Christian theology, that's a non sequitur.

[Ike]

This is true, sort of. There are beginning to see some theories with extra dimensions that actually posit an eternal, (nearly) empty universe that gets populated with matter when 2 of it's 'branes' collide. Now, I'm no expert on string theory, so I won't go into the nitty gritty of what a brane is, but basically it says that when these branes collide, a bunch of matter is created at pretty much a single point, it spreads out (with a corresponding "inflationary" phase that does not need to be put in ad-hoc, and is needed to explain the distributions of the elements we observe today), produces a universe similar to what we see, and continues to expand forever...basically until the density of the universe is so low it can be considered empty again...and then collides again with a nearby brane....

Anyway, there are potential ways we can test for extra dimensions. So far, they have come up empty, but set limits on how big they must be (for given types of ED). They still may be there, and if so, it's possible that we may still see them (LHC? or whatever, if anything, comes after that?). That wouldn't prove the extra-dimension-colliding-universes theory, but it would be a trickle of supporting evidence, and clues for where to look next.

Also, in such a theory, our next-door-neighbor-universe that ours keeps bumping into also undergoes a similar big bang type of event. Eat your heart out sci-fi writers.

[KantoSooner]

Would suggest Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing"
He teaches at Arizona State.
As I follow his argument, the universe has very likely been flitting in and out of existence for time beyond human comprehension. But that what we know as reality very much did come 'ex nihilo'.

1. I present this as a reference alone. I am not qualified to do more than gawp at most of astrophysics.

2. If you buy this argument, it ultimately says nothing about 'god'. (although it does argue against one who pays a lot of attention to minutiae, or really gives much of a rat's *** about human beings en toto, much less individually.)

[Ike]

Einstein used the "god does not play dice" statement to mark his opposition to QM as a complete theory. He posited that there must be some underlying "hidden" variables that, if known, would allow for exact prediction of a single quantum experiments (we can't predict the outcome of a single quantum experiment...only the statistical outcome of many of them). Since that time, the classes of theories posited by Einstein have been shown not to be compatible with experiment.

[TUSooner]

Let's get to the bottom line:
Okie legislators are not concerned in the tinyiest with scientific challenges to any evolutionary theories. Nor need they be, science will challenge evolutionary theories just fine, thanks. Rather, the lawmakers are once again pandering to religious fundamentalists by trying to slip the thin edge of the religious wedge into public schools. (Quit whining and start up some private "religious fundamentalist" schools and see how things go.)
Evidently, the legislators are also trying to curry favor with God by showing how much they like Him as man-like molder of reality (with his bare hands!) than as any kind of hard-to-fathom spirit or force or "logos" or whatever they can't get their tiny minds around. Gallileo lies uneasy in his grave whenever the OK legislature is in session. I think God squirms a little bit also.