Kansas fight rigged

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pinto32, May 8, 2005.

  1. pinto32 macrumors 6502

    Oct 19, 2003
  2. saxman macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2004
    Science needs to look at their own laws

    First law of Thermodynamics - Energy cannot be created or destroyed

    You can't get something from nothing according to science's own laws. The most reasonable is that there has to be a Creator somewhere.

    Evolution = theory
    Intelligent design = theory

    Good science is based on making a hypothesis that seems reasonable and then going about to prove it. There are major problems with the theory of evolution, but no "self respecting scientist" likes to talk about it because there is no better alternatives at this time. I don't see what is unreasonable in discussing its shortcomings. Isn’t that good science?

    I believe in God and am not scared that science will disprove His existence. It only makes the case stronger from my vantage point. In reality, those who believe in intelligent design or evolution will never know the whole truth on how we got here. My question is, what is science so afraid of? Answer (as it seems): what it cannot prove

    Students today need to know that evolution is not a law, it is a theory. One possible scenario for how we got here. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at other points of view.

    Don't know what the fuss is about. Other perspectives still seem to scare some people even though history has taught us that it makes us smarter.
  3. crap freakboy macrumors 6502a

    crap freakboy

    Jul 17, 2002
    nar in Gainsborough, me duck
    '...and our leading news headline tonight is that the world is flat. Heres Ted with the weather...'
  4. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    Scientific laws should not be invoked to prove (or strongly suggest) religious ideas any more than religious beliefs should be used to prove scientific facts. Science looks to prove things that can be proved (whether proved true or false). Creationism can neither be proved nor disproved, so it isn't worth using science to investigate it.

    As you point out, evolution is not any more proved than any other theory. In fact some would argue that it's not a valid scentific theory at all, since it is unclear how you would disprove it.
  5. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040


    Oct 19, 2004
    Calgary, AB
    don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church!
  6. hoyboy9 macrumors member

    Oct 1, 2004

    Saxman, I both agree with you and disagree with you. Personally, I believe that there is absolutely no conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Your use of the First Law is a simplistic yet clever way to show that the big bang could not have occured without some outside influence. Let's call that influence God.

    However, I want to call your bluff. What are these "major" problems with evolution? I don't understand what you mean when you say that "no self-respecting scientist" will discuss the problems with this theory. I have taken some advanced biology in college, and done my own biology research, and evolution has been a fundamental glue for all the different segments of theory. I'll give a quickie refutation for evolution skeptics out there.

    Because of the immense time spans necessary for macroscale evolution to occur, people have a hard time believing that it can occur. Well, how about we look at microscale evolution and extrapolate? How you do account for the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacterial strains? It has been estimated that one mutant bacterium is formed for every 10^7 bacteria. As you know, there are trillions and trillions of bacteria. So what happens if one of the mutations enabled a bacterium to survive an antibiotic treatment?

    This is not a trivial example, as it has occured with penicillin, then methicillin in the 80's, and now vancomycin. Evolution! Is it so hard to believe that these mutations won't accrue over millions of years? It isn't a matter of belief, but a statistical certainty. Those bacteria without certain mutations will die, and those that do continue on. If we happen to treat somebody with antibiotics that just has ONE resistant bacterium, you will be killing off all the "competitors" and allowing the resistant bacteria to create many many more copies. That is evolution.

    One thing I want you to do is completely forget ALL the fossil evidence we have that supports evolution. You don't need it to prove evolution! It's just extra supporting evidence for the main proof: DNA. Here's two examples.

    Just by looking at DNA, we can see how life has evolved. For example, mitochondria are essential in our bodies for producing energy. But curiously, mitochondria have all the characteristics of certain kinds of bacteria. You can trace the DNA back to a time in which some organsisms lived symbiotically together with mitochondria bacteria, and the mitochondrial DNA was integrated into the host's genome.

    Another thing: why is it that so much of our genome is composed of introns (disused base pairs)? It doesn't make sense for all that "junk" to be in there, unless it was acquired from previous generations. In fact, you can look at some of this "junk" and trace it to very similar genes sequences that are activated in other species!

    That being said, I don't think this conflicts at all with intelligent design. Why? Because nobody will ever be able to disprove that God did not guide evolution. Since we have an incredible wealth of evidence supporting evolution, it makes sense that this was the mechanism of God's plan. Therefore, I am both secure in my belief that God created the universe, and he used evolution to do it.
  7. Steven1621 macrumors 6502a


    Apr 10, 2003
    Can anyone direct me to any scientific advances that Intelligent Design science has created?

    I have great difficultly in seeing Intelligent Design as anything other than a mask for Creationism and a weak attempt to discredit the most important scientific theory to date.

    Perhaps we don't know how the universe was formed at the present moment, but we will at some point in the future. Science, unlike religion, does not start with the answers.

    Also, there is a distinct difference between denying Evolution and beleving in Intelligent design. Perhaps there is validity to the claim that Evolution is a product of God. It is completely different, however, to deny the truths of Evolution on the basis of Intellgient Design. I highly recommend leaning some biology before taking that stance. Evolution is hard to ignore when the proof is made apparent.
  8. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    Reminded me of this Richard Fenyman quote:

    "I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
  9. ahamilt2 macrumors member

    Sep 20, 2004
    Bellingham, WA
    If God defined the law science, then why can't He use them?
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    American politics at it's best, put on a "show" for the public while the politicians have already made their decisions behind closed doors.
  11. MacRy macrumors 68040


    Apr 2, 2004
    The sooner that we grow up as a species and stop believing in some all powerful being that created us the better in my opinion. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't automatically mean that it must have been the creation of a godlike entity. That's so naive it's painful. I don't entirely understand how me pressing these keys on my iBook makes letters come up on my screen but I don't prostrate myself in front of it and offer it my everlasting soul. At one point we worshipped the sun and moon and most people find that laughable now and I don't see any difference in the worship of a more sophisticated deity.

    I don't want to get into a theological debate about this and i'm just venting I know, but it does annoy me when people smugly announce that science is wrong because it doesn't conform to their outmoded and ancient beliefs. Keep your ghost stories and i'll have progress any day.
  12. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a


    Apr 22, 2004
    San Diego, CA
    I'm not sure exactly what major problems he was talking about, but I can point a few out. Just as a preface, I believe in limited evolution, with God lending a guiding hand.

    Let's take the development of various parts of an animal. Let's imagine a fish growing legs and lungs. First, its genes mutate so that his fins are a little more leg-like. How does this help it at all? They aren't full legs. At best they are little stubs. How does this particular fish survive anymore than another? How does this lead to all land-dwelling animals?

    And how about lungs? Lungs are terribly complex. How do they develop magically from one generation to the next? And if they grow slowly, I do not think that a fish with useless sacs that might one day let him breathe on land is anymore likely to survive (if not less likely) than a regular fish. You could go on like this with any number of animal parts from eyes to fingernails.

    And what about animals that are so specialized that two animals require each other for survival? Take the clown fish and sea anemone. The clown fish needs the sea anemone for protection, and the sea anemone needs the clown fish to clean it. Did these two animals just happen to evolve at the same time so that they fit perfectly together?

    These are the holes I see in the evolution-only theory.
  13. x86isslow macrumors 6502a

    Aug 10, 2003
    the easiest way to disprove the notion that Intelligent Design holds a candle to Evolution as a theory is by taking a look at the human eye. ID's advocates often claim that the human eye is soooo perfect that the only way it could have possibly originated was from some divine power. the simplest way to refute that argument is to point to glasses, cataracts, and contacts. nothing so perfect would have such problems, right?

    more complex refutations involve the actual design of the eye. if some higher power decided to design a perfect eye, would s/he put an optical nerve in front of the viewing surface to purposely create a blind spot? :p

    if you want to find a perfect eye, look at a squid's eye. the nerve doesn't block the viewing surface at all. also, the squid's path of evolution branched off from ours quite a while ago, meaning that their eye independently evolved. of course, squid have their stomach in the middle of their brain, so i suppose it all balances out in the end :D

    ID folks like to say that evolution is impossible, because there would be no reason for a partial eye to evolve, that it would not be in any way beneficial to the organism, yet in underwater environments, there are creatures with light sensing 'proto-eyes', and since such a gradient exists between complete eyes and no eyes, it is more likely that eyes evolved than Power Almighty deciding which animals (there are millions of species) would get eyes, and what kind of eyes they would get.

    In early seas, animals were tiny creatures that fed on plankton-like things, so light detectors would give them a distinct advantage over competition that was not able to follow the light to the the plankton.

    there are many more refutations that basically make ID look silly, but having forgotten much of AP Bio in the two years since i finished the course, i'm probably not the guy to list em
  14. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    They don't. That's why there are no walking fish-people.

    You are underestimating the subtlety of and the time scales over which evolution can take place. First of all, species generally don't make these huge jumps as in your fish with legs example. More likely there was some very simple organism (amoeba or something) that originally lived in water, but a slight mutation made it better suited to live on land. So it did, and it had babies. And time went on. A *LOT* of time. I don't know how old you are, but think about how long it feels like it's been since you were born. Now multiply that by 100,000. That's a lot of time for a lot of otherwise unlikely events to occur, like the evolution of animals with legs. So yes, I think it is possible that the clown fish and anemone just happened to evolve a certain way and fit together perfectly. In fact, I would be willing to extrapolate this reasoning to explain how humans ended up existing in the first place. The universe is unimaginably big. And it has existed for an unimaginably long time. That's a lot of time and space for very unlikely things to happen. I think people are a good example of that. (The universe has been around at least 10 BILLION years *longer* than the Earth, which is a spry 4.5 MILLION years old- that's a long time for some freaky stuff to happen).

    Now, all that said, do I know how or why all of this was put in motion to begin with? Nope...and it's at that point where I have to admit that the existance of a God sounds as likely as anything.
  15. ewinemiller macrumors 6502

    Aug 29, 2001
    west of Philly
    Don't let anyone fool you, ID is not a theory. It is perhaps a belief, but not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It cannot be falsified. A perfectly acceptable answer in the ID community is the creator made it that way. If an experiment does not produce the results you expect, then you're theory was not incorrect, the creator simply changed the results to test your faith.

    Go spend some time at talkorgins.com or learn a bit about cosmology, for every ID complaint (for example the first law of thermodynamics one), they don't hold water. Most of them are really just a fundemental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. BTW, evolution does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, the Earth is not a closed system. Perhaps you haven't noticed that rather large ball of hydrogen burning up in the sky raining energy down on the Earth.

    You are correct that it is not unreasonable to look at alternative points of view. The very basis of science is that anything can change at any time if new evidence is found or an experiment shows a theory to be false. However ID is not science so shouldn't be taught as one of those points of view in a science class. Teach it in philosophy or theology, but don't teach it as science.

    If ID wants to be real science, it needs to behave like real science. Instead of attacking evolution with bad metaphors and pseudo-science trying to show it's too complicated, come up with repeatable experiments that show the hand of the creator. Submit them to peer review, let the rest of the world try the experiment and find the creator too. Until then, it's not science it's a belief and beliefs are taught in theology and philosphy.

    Finally, the real thing that bugs me about ID is that for the most part it's put forward by Christians who don't want to say creationism because they know that is a lost battle. They wrap up creationism in pseudo-science babble, don't present evidence, simply attack evolution poorly, and call it ID. It's deceitful and denying your god. It's been some years since I read the bible, but I do remember some very specific passages about those things being a really bad idea. If you believe in creationism because of your faith, that's great, but don't lie about it by professing ID, that makes you a crappy Christian.
  16. hoyboy9 macrumors member

    Oct 1, 2004
    The second sentence by itself is something I absolutely agree with. While I believe in a creator, that creator gave us brains so we could THINK and analyze our world.

    However, the second sentence has a problem. It does not logically follow from the first sentence. You are basing your arguement on the assumption that humankind will ALWAYS be able to find an explanation for everything. This is easily proven false, and the most obvious example is a proof of where the universe came from.

    Like a previous poster said, you cannot create or destroy energy, it can just be transferred between forms. This is not some idea that somebody came up with, it is a provable law of nature! You assert that people need to grow up and "get over" putting their faith in a higher power to explain things. However, you are basing that assertion on the (wrong) assumption that we can completely understand EVERYTHING in our universe. Therefore, you have that same faith religious people do, but you place your faith in people.

    If you step back and think about it, your thought process is no different from that of a religious person, but you have placed your faith in imperfect but tangible beings, while religious people place their faith in a perfect but intangible being. In my opinion, both of these things are very difficult to do!
  17. mcadam macrumors 6502a


    Apr 3, 2004
    All this talk about fishlegs and squideyes... take a look HERE -Please note the coffinfish and the jewel squid.

    Aaaand what have we here - a LUNGFISH :eek:

    So, as we can all see, there seem to be several missing links swimming around in the deep mysterious waters of this intriguing planet of ours.

    Thank you. I'll save that one :D ... along with this one i saw on scribbled on the bus today:

    "god is dead and I'm alive"

  18. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    Actually, we CAN have a complete scientific understanding of everything *in* the universe, given enough time and technology. That is not the same as being able to prove where the universe came from. That is a question for metaphysics, which is NOT science. Science can never be used to prove anything outside of the universe. That does not make science any less valid for proving things WITHIN the universe, like how humans came to be.
  19. hoyboy9 macrumors member

    Oct 1, 2004
    That's a good point! Thanks for clarifying. I read a great book about the progress of science called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn that really interesting if anybody wants to read it. It's an interesting read for anybody studying the philosophy of science and how we come to understand the universe.
  20. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    Whoops sorry, I edited my post a bit after you replied...I still say the same things though just a little differently.
  21. arcuddihy macrumors newbie

    Feb 3, 2004
    I'm a cancer researcher. As such I study cell biology and know how exquisitely complex the cellular machinery is and that it hinges on everything going "right" just to keep us alive and breathing every single day.

    ID might jump on this as being proof of the helping hand of a creator.

    However, one only needs to look at the multitude of genetic diseases out there to know that there are just too many things that can go wrong. Cancer is one such example-and in its own way cancer is evolution at work. I'd argue that ID would not have made such a flawed or overly complex system.

    This seems to be a curiously American phenomenon, this whole debate. North of the 45th, we don't really seem to have this problem. Even the previous Pope, from my recollection, made major overtures to evolutionary theory and tried to find ways to reconcile it with Genesis.
  22. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2005
    Ah, you bring up a good point. I hope everyone can really appreciate how beautiful the mechanisms at work in living things are, regardless of your explanation for them.
  23. mcadam macrumors 6502a


    Apr 3, 2004
    Yup, I noticed that too - this discussion doesn't really exist at all on my side of the pond. America seem to have become the most religous country in the western world, and the only place where religion is apparently gaining in importance rather than more or less rapidly loosing ground.Why is that?

  24. tpjunkie macrumors 65816


    Nov 24, 2002
    As for the first point, some clarification; most evolutionary biologists are pretty much united in the current belief that the lungs of land dwelling animals most likely developed from the gas bladders of fish, most likely due to a trend towards increasing vascularization (thus allowing absorbtion of oxygen into the blood stream, in effect a simple avleoli) that provided more oxygenation of the blood in shallow/drying up areas. because the

    As for the second point, i assume thats a typo, as Earth is more like 4.5 billion years old.
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    your misapplication of real science underscores the need to teach and emphasize science in the schools, as early as possible.

    theory and faith are opposites. i've put my trust in the former, but don't deny you access to the latter. those who subscribe to the latter, as is the case in Kansas right now, should not deny access to the former.

    ignorance doesn't do any of us any good.

Share This Page