Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
robyn hill wrote:Al, you said,
Why should debate exist in the classroom? We're going to let a bunch of 9th graders decide what ideas should be promoted by the scientific community? Debate should exist among scientists, a philosophers of science. I keep returning to my Holocaust denier - should we teach both sides and let the students decide? Should we teach astronomy and astrology? Flat earth and regular geology? I'm not sure what could be clearer - we don't promote and teach every idea that exists. For one thing, there isn't time. Second of all, at some point it simply serves to confuse students. Third of all, we have groups of experts who can wade through the morass and decide what ideas have made it in science and what ideas have not. There is no sane reason whatsoever that we should teach idea X just because group of people Y and Z find it fanciful - especially if the idea has not yet bore fruit in the discipline to which it belongs. So yes, to the extent that I consider ID to be currently fruitless, I feel it has no place alongside a valid scientific theory. Who know? Maybe Behe et al. really will discover some IC structures and maybe ID will provide us with fruitful avenues of research. Until then, it stays out of my science classroom.
My thoughts,
In respect to the holocaust, astrology and flat vs.round earth, we do teach those ideas. We teach them in history classes or at least we should be. We learn from the mistakes of history. Those have all been theories which have been proven to either not work or proven false. As far as intelligent design, when students ask how our earth is the only planet with so many systems that happen to provide exactly what is needed to sustain life, science hasn't provided an exact answer- except theories. Intelligent design is one such theory and since so many people accept this as a possible theory, and it hasn't been disproven, students should be taught it exists,if not for any other reason, because It is prevelant today. That doesn't mean we teach that it is right, that is when science is overstepping its boundaries and I suspect many classrooms do that today with certain theories that have also not been proven, but it should be introduced as one theory that is discussed in science today. It is being discussed ,I presume, or I doubt this conversation would've lasted this long.
Robyn, my only worry about your argument is that it *does* seem to be resorting to the "God of the Gaps" style. YOu have used the fine-tuning defense many times. And I'm not necessaaily saying that we aren't. However, there has been some intriguing evidence that there could be life on Mars...or might have been....what then? Does your argument that the universe is fine-tuned to have only life on this planet become...what...fodder for the atheists?
I am afraid that we allow atheists and secularists to define our beliefs for us becuase we see what they say and then insist it couldn't have been that way. All truth is God's truth and we need to be willing to examine everything and not let the athesits define our beliefs.
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"
robyn hill wrote:In respect to the holocaust, astrology and flat vs.round earth, we do teach those ideas. We teach them in history classes or at least we should be. We learn from the mistakes of history. Those have all been theories which have been proven to either not work or proven false. As far as intelligent design, when students ask how our earth is the only planet with so many systems that happen to provide exactly what is needed to sustain life, science hasn't provided an exact answer- except theories. Intelligent design is one such theory and since so many people accept this as a possible theory, and it hasn't been disproven, students should be taught it exists,if not for any other reason, because It is prevelant today. That doesn't mean we teach that it is right, that is when science is overstepping its boundaries and I suspect many classrooms do that today with certain theories that have also not been proven, but it should be introduced as one theory that is discussed in science today. It is being discussed ,I presume, or I doubt this conversation would've lasted this long.
Well, Robyn, I don't know about your school district, but in my district we do not teach these ideas. At best, we mention them in passing, but I know of no schools that teach Holocaust denial together with the Holocaust. The reason? Because we don't teach ideas simply because some people espouse them.
As for our planet being unique - I think it is unusual, but not unique. This is the only planet capable of sustaining life that we know of. And so far as I know, ID does not provide an answer for why this is so.
Teaching an idea - especially a scientific one - just because it is popular is an incredibly bad reason for doing so, and it flies in the face of the way that science works. There are lots of hypotheses generated every day in science, and many of these make their way into scientific journals (try picking up a journal in theoretical biology). But these ideas are scrutinized, and only those that appear to generate new avenues of research, that enjoy empirical support and that produce viable results are developed, popularized, tested and ultimately taught. ID has done none of this - it appeared suddenly less than 20 years ago, it has not produced IC structures and the notion that genetic information can not increase has been shown to be wrong. In short, this is an idea that, by the standards of science, has failed utterly. And to teach it alongside the ToE as a viable alternative until it delivers on what it promises is shameful. Not only that, but wedging it into science classrooms suggesting it is a valid alternative to an idea that has delivered on its promises for 150 years is an awful example for students of the process of science.
ARWallace wrote:ID has done none of this - it appeared suddenly less than 20 years ago, it has not produced IC structures and the notion that genetic information can not increase has been shown to be wrong. In short, this is an idea that, by the standards of science, has failed utterly. And to teach it alongside the ToE as a viable alternative until it delivers on what it promises is shameful. Not only that, but wedging it into science classrooms suggesting it is a valid alternative to an idea that has delivered on its promises for 150 years is an awful example for students of the process of science.
I fully agree that ID does not belong in science classrooms. The very principle of the theory implies shutting the door on attempting to answer how certain things came about. To maintain irreducible complexity is to give up on the 'how' as to origins. While I do not concede the non-existence of IC, science classroom is not the place for such. But I really don't believe ID was even meant to provide an scientific alternative for the ToE but a philosophical one and rightfully so. ID arose mainly to counter ToE's claims of undirected, chance (or godless) creation and what that entails. I suspect if the scientific community would acknowledge the ToE's limitations and concede that some aspects of the theory that cannot possibly be proven in a lab are just that, theories and stop teaching them as undeniable fact in science classrooms, ID would not have seen the light of day. A simple 'we just don't know' would be much more intellectually honest than theorizing life came about from a primordial soup and teaching that as fact in the absence of proof. Not allowing alternative theories is the ultimate exercise in hypocrisy. In my humble, non-scientific opinion that's what this debate boils down to.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Al, you said,
Not only that, but wedging it into science classrooms suggesting it is a valid alternative to an idea that has delivered on its promises for 150 years is an awful example for students of the process of science.
Evolution doesn't explain how our planet set in motion becoming hospitible to sustain life, rather, it attempts to explain how life evolves within our planet . So, I think we are talking about two different ideas. You are talking about evolution when you refer to 150 years of study,I am referring to how our planet originated to offer such life sustaining capabilities. The scientific explaination, as far as I know, is all actions during the big bang happened at just such a perfect time to provide a life sustaining planet. In regards to what you said,I don't think intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom, but to not mention it as a possible theory, one that many scientists are debating, I believe is overstepping the boundaries of science and insisting the only plausible explaination is that we exist because of fortunate variables. I know plenty of scientists who believe that mathematically, all these variables occuring at just the right time,is just not a plausible solution.
I am afraid that we allow atheists and secularists to define our beliefs for us becuase we see what they say and then insist it couldn't have been that way. All truth is God's truth and we need to be willing to examine everything and not let the athesits define our beliefs.
Okay....I am just making sure that the terms that have been tossed around are understood between all parties...I was sitting there perplexed as to why my memory of ORF's and ORFans or ORPHANS was not giving me similar pieces of infomration.
One term that has been stated is Open reading frame...which I have always understood to be the region of DNA between the start and stop codons. The is the region that is transcribed and then some is translated (coding sequence)
Orphan genes, however, seem to be what has been tossed around lately, which are the genes that don't have homologues in other organism groups.
UNless I am missing a link between the two, these seem to be talking about two distinct concepts.
Just....making sure I was reading everybo'dy's concepts correctly....
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"
>>I looked at your articles (some that I have read before) and they pretty much confirm what I stated earlier. Again scientists may theorize how ORFans relate, but nothing is for certain (as the documents suggest). In fact in one of them they state, "The origin of many such "orphan" genes remains unknown." Of course there are endless possibilities, notions, ideas, etc. for their relations… As an example, I can go around and label parts of my car too, but that doesn't necessarily mean I know how all the parts came together, unless of course I talked to the auto mechanic of course... Who knows?
You seem not to be interested in much beyond the fact that orphan genes are enigmatic. I did a 30 second search on Google and linked you to articles that provided clues about their function, origin (transposable elements) and the fact that many genes labeled orphan genes may simply be the product of incomplete gene sequencing. And this was a 30 second search. I am certain that if questions about their function, origin and purpose genuinely interested you as much as it appears to interest the scientists that study them, you could find much more. But the fact that you can't explain their existence does not mean that science cannot or has not. I've done my due diligence here.
>>Ok, fine.. You say, capable of being acted on by evolution? You say, “Whether they are the exact steps is a matter of some debate.”? Well sure anything could be theoretically possible… Maybe it was the marx brothers too… That is the point I have been trying to make with you. These are simply assumptions… They are arguments… Of course they go with ToE, because that is the "legal" interpretation of the facts…
No, not everything is theoretically possible. In fact many experiments have been modified or rejected for being inconsistent with conditions that existed on the Earth 4 billion years ago. The steps that are consistent and have been shown to occur in conditions modeling ancient Earth have been advanced. What science has shown is that it is possible to go from inorganic molecules to molecules that are capable of being modified by natural selection. And subsequent studies have shown that given a whole bunch of strands of RNA that are self replicating and variable - that over short periods of time only a few, most successful variants are left (which is exactly what you would expect from evolution). So the notion that the Marx brothers did it is not theoretically possible.
>>All you have demonstrated (very clearly) is that macroevolution is a possibility… It does NOT have all the answers.. It has NEVER been witnessed with our eyes, it is a historical assumption based on what happened in the past.. You are simply mixing your philosophy into your science..
I am afraid this is untrue. First of all, you have not yet defined macroevolution, so I'm not sure that we can agree on when it occurs. Second, I have used the example of endosymbiosis to explain how not witnessing an event does not render the events beyond the reach of science to explain (and in fact the methods of inquiry used to explain them are totally consistent with the scientific method). By your definition, Africa and South America were never joined, black holes do not exist, Asian peoples did not cross a land bridge into North America, atoms are figments of our imagination, the Hawaiian Islands could not have formed and the entire fossil record is useless. So much for science. No wait - there are evidences and methods we can use to examine these phenomena. No one witnessed Pangea, but we have theory that explains it (plate tectonics) which effectively says that small, gradual observable geological changes will result in large scale continental changes. Sort of sounds like evolution... And of course there are geologic evidences that should and do exist if Africa and South America were once joined. In the case of evolution, we have a mechanism (natural selection), the genetics are well understood, we have phylogenetic evidence, we have deep time (3.5 billion years of organic evolution), we have an abundant fossil record that documents change over time, we have witnessed speciation events - the list goes on. In their totality, they not only make macroevolution probable, they virtually render it an absolute certainty ... as much as it is a certainty that SA and Africa were once joined. Again, you don't seem to grasp the significance of the fact that the historical sciences follow the same rules as experimental science in the methods of inquiry.
>>This does NOT address what you stated earlier… You said, “So why should we have a whole class devoted to ID when we don't have them devoted so ToE?” You are wrong… Again, DE is totally engrained into science.. I have total chapters devoted only to Darwin in my biology book.. Not ID… It is a philosophy. It's ENTIRE faith or belief system rests on Darwinism and it is not the only one explanation
I am not wrong. I teach biology and I have taught courses on evolution, so I know what is taught. No mention of evolution is ever made in my biology class until our unit on evolution which is 4 chapters out of 50. In contrast, my evolution class was called "evolution", the textbook was called "Evolutionary Analysis" and the entire semester was devoted to a study of the ToE. Now, if you are suggesting that the ToE is considered the cornerstone theory in biology and is used to interpret and explain patterns, observations and phenomena, and as such is a vital part of any class on biology, then you're right. But by that logic, we should teach biology according to evolution and biology according to ID for every biology class offered in high schools. But the latter would be 2 class periods long - both devoted to an explanation of what ID is. Since it currently offers no explanation for the origin, existence or function of various structures, the rest of the year would be downtime.
>>Ad hoc? In a public setting?? Ok, why are they teaching then that ID could also be a valuable solution for science? Could it be that they don't agree with ToE?? Why?? Again, how are you determining what is religious?
Again, I have never said that ID is a religious idea (I have suspicions, but my opinion doesn't matter). I have said, repeatedly, that if it is found to be a religious idea, then it will be banned from public schools for the same reason YEC is. That is a certainty.
>>Also can evolution be falsifiable also?
Yes.
>>Again you are teaching that DE is the ONLY answer…. It's what you are programmed or have programmed yourself to do.
That's a rather bold statement coming from the anonymity of a web discussion board. Without knowing anything about me, you are essentially accusing me of lacking critical thought. Is this what you meant?
>>Happy? It sure doesn't appear that way to me… You don't appear to be asking questions... It's more of a dictation to me like your mind is already made up..
I have spent a great deal of time examining ID and read as extensively as time permits. The subject intrigues me. While I have an opinion, it is not from lack of thought and careful consideration. And I have been exceedingly careful with my wording so as not to be misunderstood - for example, I have tried to state clearly that ID has not yet produced any IC structures; and this does not preclude the possibility that it might. In other words, the verdict is not in in my mind, but the evidence against it (until such time as it does bear fruit) is overwhelming. Moreover, I will happily embrace a scientific replacement for the ToE if one exists. That's how science is.
>>Atheism can also be a belief system or a religion as well… Maybe not divine, but a belief system in itself..
How is this relevant? Philosophical materialism, which is the philosophy governing the way science is conducted, does not require belief OR disbelief in the supernatural. It simply requires that they do not credit them with intervention in their explanatory systems.
>>All you have been saying are predictions and assumptions…
Respectfully, no this is not all I have been saying.
>>And what about the supposed junk DNA? Contrary to statements by the evolutionary theory it isn't exactly useless but is actually required for genomic functionality, therefore providing more evidence of intelligent design.
How is this evidence of ID? I thought that they were concerned with IC structures as proof of design. How does junk DNA figure in? Is it IC?
>>In the Dover trail they simply reiterated what happened in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard… It might not have come under the name of ID, but saying creator, ID, designer, etc., has always been said to be a form of Biblical creationism…
You didn't answer my questions: where in the Edwards ruling do they reference design? Didn't the use of the word "designer" supplant "creator" following the Edwards trial in most texts? Did they Dover case use the Edwards case as legal precedent?
>>No… You don't understand.. It's about ALLOWING the other fighter into the ring… You haven't done that so of course it is illegal to claim victory. The fight is rigged..
Yes, I do understand. I have tried to explain to you that science is not a polite democracy of ideas. Only those that make it through an extensive review process and show promise make it. This happens day in and day out in science. If ID can't produce what it says it can produce, why should it be taken seriously? The idea is being pursued vigorously by many scientists, but the idea has yet to gain any traction in the scientific community because it has not yet done what it set out to do. The fight is definitely not rigged since it is the same fight that happens every day in science.
>>Science should remain as science regardless of the presuppositions or conclusions of the investigator.
Agreed.
>>Science should also be debatable and not be held accountable to one view if there is lacking evidence.
Again, healthy debate does exist in science, and lots of ideas are abandoned because they don't work, have no support or simply look good on paper but have no value in the real world. ID, to date, meets all three of these criteria.
>>Moreover, ID does not seek to identify the designer. It is only concerned with finding any evidence of design.
Well, the skeptic in me says there's a good reason for this.
>>Design does not require that the designer be a supernatural God either. A number of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis.
I have not brought up the argument over the identity of the designer, so it is interesting that you did. I have heard this argument before, and I think that it is a little disingenuous for a Christian and biblical literalist (not necessarily you - just in general) to embrace ID and then say "yeah, but the designer could be from outer space".
>>Also ID is not another form of creationism.
Again, I have not brought this up - you did. And I am rather disinterested in debate over the possible theistic connections to ID. But it is worth pointing out that this is not what they found out about the ID proponents in the Dover case. It was, in that case, a rather thinly veiled version of creationism.
Cheers
Al
Last edited by ARWallace on Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Byblos wrote:I fully agree that ID does not belong in science classrooms. The very principle of the theory implies shutting the door on attempting to answer how certain things came about. To maintain irreducible complexity is to give up on the 'how' as to origins. While I do not concede the non-existence of IC, science classroom is not the place for such. But I really don't believe ID was even meant to provide an scientific alternative for the ToE but a philosophical one and rightfully so. ID arose mainly to counter ToE's claims of undirected, chance (or godless) creation and what that entails. I suspect if the scientific community would acknowledge the ToE's limitations and concede that some aspects of the theory that cannot possibly be proven in a lab are just that, theories and stop teaching them as undeniable fact in science classrooms, ID would not have seen the light of day. A simple 'we just don't know' would be much more intellectually honest than theorizing life came about from a primordial soup and teaching that as fact in the absence of proof. Not allowing alternative theories is the ultimate exercise in hypocrisy. In my humble, non-scientific opinion that's what this debate boils down to.
John, while I don't think ID is ready for prime time, for myself, I'm willing to wait and see where the cards may fall... I'm NOT for teaching biblical creationism in schools however. As for the philosophical differences, yes, I believe what we have here are merely philosophical differences to an uncertain outcome.. When you boil it all down, you are pretty much left with assumptions, arguments, and opinions to the origin of life....
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
Textbooks are changing, however, so that evolution is going to be present and permeating every chapter. There is a big push from publishers and writers to create texts that have evolution as the unifying theme throughout the text.
Reviewing textbooks this year and that has definitey changed from the last review.
ZG
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"
>>A simple 'we just don't know' would be much more intellectually honest than theorizing life came about from a primordial soup and teaching that as fact in the absence of proof. Not allowing alternative theories is the ultimate exercise in hypocrisy. In my humble, non-scientific opinion that's what this debate boils down to.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. Lots of scientists say "I don't know" about lots of things. But science doesn't stop there - ever. It always assumes that natural phenomena have natural explanations, and if we don't know the answer, it's because we haven't looked hard enough, we don't have the right tools, we are looking in the wrong places or whatever. But science never accepts a "we don't know so we'll never know" explanation. And if you follow the history of science, it has a pretty good track record of explaining phenomena that were once considered unexplainable (and therefore the act of divine fiat). And I think that this is what sticks in the craw for many over ID - it is the ultimate argument from personal incredulity which is precisely what scientists have been trained not to do.
In my classes, I never teach abiogenesis as fact. I always state that it is a matter of some debate, that it is difficult to recreate events (although likely not impossible) that happened 4 billion years ago, and that what I am about to teach are possible steps in the evolution of life - no absolute. However, I also point out that they are naturalistic explanations that don't violate science in any way. And in this regard, I draw the line firmly in the sand on teaching alternative (religious) explanations. True, man being created from dust through divine intervention is an alternative to the naturalistic explanation, but it is not a viable scientific alternative. As such, it has no place in my science classroom.
Textbooks are changing, however, so that evolution is going to be present and permeating every chapter. There is a big push from publishers and writers to create texts that have evolution as the unifying theme throughout the text.
Reviewing textbooks this year and that has definitey changed from the last review.
ZG
From my perspective, this much needed change. But I will be a minority opinion on this board, I know.
But this doesn't change what I said to Gman - there are distinct units on evolution, and teachers often teach alternative ideas such as ID at this time. If the ToE becomes integrated thoroughly into biology curricula (as I think it should), the only equal time alternative would be to teach ID-biology and evolution-biology. Given its lack of success in producing IC structures (a central and vital part of ID), the former course would likely amount to not much more than perceived criticisms of evolution. In fact, in alternative textbooks I've seen (e.g. The Panda's Thumb), that's about what it boils down to...
And of course we'd have to do ID versions of biomedical science, anatomy and physiology, and so on as well.
zoegirl wrote:Okay....I am just making sure that the terms that have been tossed around are understood between all parties...I was sitting there perplexed as to why my memory of ORF's and ORFans or ORPHANS was not giving me similar pieces of infomration.
One term that has been stated is Open reading frame...which I have always understood to be the region of DNA between the start and stop codons. The is the region that is transcribed and then some is translated (coding sequence)
Orphan genes, however, seem to be what has been tossed around lately, which are the genes that don't have homologues in other organism groups.
UNless I am missing a link between the two, these seem to be talking about two distinct concepts.
Just....making sure I was reading everybo'dy's concepts correctly....
Thank you - in the little time I had to do any honest research on that subject, I admit that I skimmed a little. Digging deeper, I found that one of the quotes Gman provided was the same quote used in an ID textbook (Exploring Evolution). I'm not saying that's where he got it, but it is in the alternative textbook. and as such, there are folks who dissect these texts as closely as anti-evolutionists dissect mainstream texts. First they explain that (as I said earlier) ORFans appear initially to be unrelated to other genes, but homologs are found when genomes are fully sequenced. And they offer perfectly valid explanations for the ORFans that do exist. Moreover, they are candid about saying "we don't know everything yet" which is exactly the opposite of what you'd think they would say if they were part of a conspiracy to preserve the ToE. You can read about it here: http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/ofrans-genes
And if you read the footnote, it would appear that the authors singled out one sentence from a paragraph - and in so doing, they either inadvertently or deliberately distorted what is known about ORFans. Hm.
ARWallace wrote:in the little time I had to do any honest research on that subject, I admit that I skimmed a little. Digging deeper, I found that one of the quotes Gman provided was the same quote used in an ID textbook (Exploring Evolution). I'm not saying that's where he got it, but it is in the alternative textbook. and as such, there are folks who dissect these texts as closely as anti-evolutionists dissect mainstream texts.
Actually, nice try but I do not have that book Exploring Evolution.... But now that you have perked my curiosity about it, I will surely check it out... Thanks for the tip and giving me more ammunition for my argument.
ARWallace wrote:which is exactly the opposite of what you'd think they would say if they were part of a conspiracy to preserve the ToE. You can read about it here: http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/ofrans-genes
And if you read the footnote, it would appear that the authors singled out one sentence from a paragraph - and in so doing, they either inadvertently or deliberately distorted what is known about ORFans. Hm.
Footnote? This link falls beautifully in what I told you before... All we have here are assumptions... Did you actually take the time to read it? Let's look at the basic arguments taken from the website...
There are a number of reasons why a small percentage of these genes remain ORFans
1) Some ORFans MAY be artefacts.
2) Some ORFans MAY have relatives, but we haven't sampled enough genomes yet.
3) Some ORFans MAY have relatives, but our tools aren't good enough to detect these relatives yet.
4) Some ORFans MAY be de novo generated proteins.
May, could, should, possibilities, ideas, think, are just what they are.. They are beliefs... They are assumptions looking through the lens of ToE ... Again, no one is really certain to what the ORFans parents are.. That is why they are called ORFans... Not family members, not neighbors. Orphans...
More to come....
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
>>Actually, nice try but I do not have that book Exploring Evolution....
It wasn't actually a "try". Merely an observation. But quote mining on both sides of the debate is not a very useful or productive manner for making an argument.
ARWallace wrote:>>Actually, nice try but I do not have that book Exploring Evolution....
It wasn't actually a "try". Merely an observation. But quote mining on both sides of the debate is not a very useful or productive manner for making an argument.
Well it was a wrong observation.. Sorry.. Mining? And you are not providing/mining links to your arguments either?
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
