babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Senator calls for answer on creation of universe
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 26 February 2007 11:57 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know about you, but I always expect my education dept. officials to answer ultimate questions about the existence of god, the meaning of life, etc.

quote:
NASHVILLE - Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the universe was created by a "Supreme Being."

Under Senate Resolution 17, introduced by the Maryville Republican, the answer would come from state Education Commissioner Lana Seivers "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of evolution in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of "creationism," or "intelligent design."

The move would thus renew a debate that has raged off and on in the Tennessee Legislature since at least 1925, when the 64th General Assembly enacted a law forbidding the teaching of evolution - setting the stage for the famous John Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tenn., later that year.

Finney said there is no doubt in his own mind that everything in the universe, including human beings, was created by a Supreme Being.

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.

"I'm not demanding that she (Seivers) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no creationism.' "

As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question - stating that the universe was not created by a Supreme Being - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the creation of the universe is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?


Read it here.

The text of Tennessee Senate Resolution 17 can be read here.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: Snuckles ]


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 27 February 2007 08:13 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The teaching of creationism? What is there to teach?

Just once I would like to hear just what it is these ID fruitcakes think the teachers should be teaching under the title "Creationism".


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 27 February 2007 11:57 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the word Yggdrasil doesn't pop up then we all know it is bull shit! Everybody knows that the mighty world tree is center of creation! Ymer and his cow growl with anger until Ragnarok comes and with the flaming sword Surtr shall burn all the worlds and only then will the gods and man live in harmony - right in sunny Telemark.

Why won't people teach this? It makes sense and there is all sorts of proof.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 01 March 2007 12:34 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The teaching of creationism? What is there to teach?

Piece of cake.

The world was created in six literal days.

All people are direct descendants of Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

The earth is the centre of the universe.

The earth is flat.

And lots of other stuff. The mind boggles.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 01 March 2007 01:06 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recall a Frantics skit back in the 80s where a teacher capitulates to the demand that "all theories" of the origin of the world be taught, and obligingly goes into all kinds of other ancient mythologies (including one that says the world was created from a piece of dung). Maybe some brave teacher should try that approach.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 March 2007 04:20 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reminds me of the attempt by an Indiana legislator to pass a law fixing the value of pi:
quote:
In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2, as we shall see....

Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number. "Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead, mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the following formulae:

(1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4 to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2

(2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4 the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we see that pi must be equal to 4.

(3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23.


Source

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 10:28 AM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John K:

Piece of cake.

The world was created in six literal days.

All people are direct descendants of Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

The earth is the centre of the universe.

The earth is flat.

And lots of other stuff. The mind boggles.


One could argue that the theory of evolution is equally absurd.


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 08 March 2007 10:48 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

One could argue that the theory of evolution is equally absurd.



Please, please, please try....



From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 08 March 2007 11:12 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, the theory of evolution made a number of predictions. This is how scientific theories are tested, by how well subsequent evidence complies with those predictions. As a scientific theory, evolution has been extremely successful. The more knowledge we glean from the fossil records and other sources, the more the theory is supported.

The "theory" of creationism is not a scientific theory at all, because it makes no predictions, and hence cannot be tested. It is a belief system. I'm not knocking belief systems. I have my own and they are also untestable. I do know how to separate said belief systems from the scientific pursuit of knowledge, however. To confuse the two only shows you don't know what you're talking about.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 12:31 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

Please, please, please try....



Are you suggesting that the evolution theory has no flaws to present? Fine then! lets start from the beginning. Here is a question for you; how did the first "unit" of life come to existence, and how did it look like?

quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

To confuse the two only shows you don't know what you're talking about.


Are you making a general statement or directing that comment to someone?


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2007 12:53 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

Are you suggesting that the evolution theory has no flaws to present? Fine then! lets start from the beginning. Here is a question for you; how did the first "unit" of life come to existence, and how did it look like?


The theory of evolution does not and was never intended to address this issue.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2007 01:00 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

One could argue that the theory of evolution is equally absurd.


Perhaps we could start this discussion by you telling us what you understand the theory of evolution to be.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 08 March 2007 01:01 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

Are you suggesting that the evolution theory has no flaws to present? Fine then! lets start from the beginning. Here is a question for you; how did the first "unit" of life come to existence, and how did it look like?

'...and how did it look like?'

Well there's an argument against evolution right there.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 08 March 2007 01:18 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:

'...and how did it look like?'

Well there's an argument against evolution right there.


Nice.

I've personally had this arguement far too many times to want to have it again, but creationism/intelligent design are not mutually exclusive of darwinism/evolution/big bang.

It's only the biblical literalists that have a problem with this. But then, ask those people if the like shellfish.. http://godhatesshrimp.com/

Science is the learning and inprovement of scientific theory based on factual outcomes and provable test results, science isn't always right, science is based on best guesses and the vast majority of legitimate scientists will tell you that their work does not have the intention or desire to speak to the nature or existance of God, only the natural world in which we live.

Religion on the other hand is a theoretical discussion on the nature of God and the purpose of humanity. A question that cannot be answered through science, or history, or any other course taught in school. Religion is unto itself a different philosophical understanding that, should you include it in science classes, would need to also be included in EVERY class (eg, Did God make Hitler evil for a reason? Why did God want Johnny to sink that basketball?). Forcing it's way into science class demeans the point of science class (which I think IS the point here) and should not be allowed in any way.

Otherwise, I'm pusing for The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 08 March 2007 01:36 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh. Heh heh heh.

From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 08 March 2007 01:53 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you making a general statement or directing that comment to someone?

General statement.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 08 March 2007 03:23 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ConcernedCanadian, the fact that you'd start into anything on evolution with a line like that proves that you have no idea what evolution consists of and you're regurgitating what the 'intelligent design' people will tell you the theory of evolution. Really, you're taking your information from the same people that'll make the argument 'Pro-choice people hate all life and thats why they support abortions'.

Please, go read what evolution entails from multiple points of view. Go find out what evolution consists of... Not just how it applies to humans, but how it applies to all the life around us, abstract concepts like ideas, society, and life in general. Then come back here and argue that evolution which applies to 99.9% of everything does not apply to humans because your god said so.


Quelar:

quote:
Religion on the other hand is a theoretical discussion on the nature of God and the purpose of humanity.

Simplify... Science is to observe the world around you and define you're beleifs by what you observe. Organized Religion is the act of defining everything around you by the beleifs you hold. A scientific person can change his beleifs to match what he observes while the religious is stuck arguing the mundane to ensure it fits into the cookie cutter mold that is their never-changing beleif structure.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 03:32 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

Perhaps we could start this discussion by you telling us what you understand the theory of evolution to be.

Why is my question causing all this controversy? Let me be clear that I am speaking here about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution which says that all life is related and has descended from common ancestor, that that life developed from non-life, and that complex creatures evolved using methods like natural selection from more simple ancestors using purely naturalistic undirected "descent with modification"

I didn’t mean to imply by my question that Darwin’s theory of evolution is meant to explain what the first “unit of life” looked like, but the theory is built on the assumption that first “unit of life” has the capability to start that chain reaction.

The reason I asked that question is because our current knowledge puts Darwin’s theory to the test. Trying to imagine what the simplest unit of life would be that is capable of surviving its environment, feeding, changing food to energy, excreting, and have the mechanism to reproduce, etc. you will find that even for the simplest organisms you are looking at a small factory of “thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,") Any malfunction of any of those “pieces” of that “Machinery” would in most cases cause it to halt.

Would a “freak of nature” that caused the first non-life to become life have constructed such a complex system that is “more complex than any machinery built by man” with no mistakes?

I was merely trying to show how the theory fails right from the beginning.


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 08 March 2007 05:30 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You are merely showing your ignorance of the topic at hand.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 05:33 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

Really, you're taking your information from the same people that'll make the argument 'Pro-choice people hate all life and thats why they support abortions'

Noise, are you saying that if I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution I am automatically a member of The Discovery Institute? Some scientists (atheists among others) do not subscribe to generally accepted view of origins and still believe in evolution which is my stand, and are not trying to promote any religious ideologies.

Take for example what Francis Crick (he was an atheist), who received Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA) said:

quote:

To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?
This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!
This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 1011 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 1080, is quite paltry by comparison to 10260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense.

Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), pp 51-52.


Or Jacques Monod (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1965)

quote:

The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have "learned" to mobilize chemical potential and to synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell. But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern _expression of omne vivum ex ovo [everything that lives, (comes) from an egg]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.

"Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology", [1971], 142-143.

Even Darwin him self said:

quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."


"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.


There seems to be a big confusion between evolution the fact and evolution the theory. Evolution is a fact and can be demonstrated every day. But the mechanism evolution from no-life to human beings is theory with proposed set of laws that are being both demonstrated and refuted every day by millions of missing links and failure of the theory to demonstrate how the first “unit of life” came to being as expressed by the quotes above.


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 06:05 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
You are merely showing your ignorance of the topic at hand.


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 08 March 2007 06:13 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You've been quote-mining at pathlights.com again, haven't you?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2007 06:54 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

Why is my question causing all this controversy? Let me be clear that I am speaking here about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution which says that all life is related and has descended from common ancestor, that that life developed from non-life, and that complex creatures evolved using methods like natural selection from more simple ancestors using purely naturalistic undirected "descent with modification"


I can see that you lifted your answer almost word for word from the opening line at the website http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com. This website is run by http://www.allaboutgod.com/ and should not be considered unbiased in it's description of evolution.

quote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification".

That is, in fact, not what the theory of evolution is in totality. It is one aspect of a theory behind evolution but not the whole of what evolution is. It is known as the theory of common descent.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 07:13 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
You've been quote-mining at pathlights.com again, haven't you?

First time to hear of it. What did you do? Put the quote in Google, and came up with this website and tried to blame me for quote mining form it. Well No, My quotes came from few articles that are discussing Prof. Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box.
example (nytimes)were Behe mentions Francis Crick, which led me to read more about him.

Again resulting to that type of Ad hominem attack only shows your bankruptcy to carry on an intelligent reply to my argument.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: ConcernedCanadian ]


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 08 March 2007 07:20 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
~ yawn ~
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 07:39 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

That is, in fact, not what the theory of evolution is in totality. It is one aspect of a theory behind evolution but not the whole of what evolution is. It is known as the theory of common descent.


I was clear in a posting above that I know the difference between what sometimes referred to as macro and micro evolution. And that I am against the macro not the micro.

quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Evolution 101

I do admit to plagiarizing from that site posted, but for the intent of finding a quick definition by googling Behe and Darwin. While the site might be biased the premise still holds true in my opinion.


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2007 07:42 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The premise as presented at that site and similar sites is based not on a hypothesis but a solution to which a "hypothesis" is created. In essence, they have the answer as they want it and are framing a question to get there.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 08 March 2007 08:05 PM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.


The link again


From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 08 March 2007 08:32 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:
I do admit to plagiarizing ...
A good start.

Now will you admit to your extreme intellectual dishonesty?

Above you purported to quote Darwin:

quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:
Even Darwin him self said:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
So, ConcernedCanadian are you deliberately misleading us, or are you merely plagiarizing somebody else who is deliberately misleading us?

Consider this:

quote:
Various Creationist books have a quote from The Origin of
Species
(1859):


To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This implies that Darwin didn't have faith in his own theory. Or,
perhaps it implies that Darwin saw a hole in his theory, and didn't
know how to solve it. But let's look at the next two sentences:

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned
round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but
the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows,
cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect
can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is
certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations
be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations
should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then
the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be
formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination,
should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


The Origin of Species, Chapter Six, "Organs of extreme Perfection and
Complication"

So Darwin was not in fact despairing. He was asking a rhetorical
question, and then he started into a convincing answer.

Today, a century-odd later, there is a highly developed theory of

how an eye would have evolved. Many
popular-science books, such as those of Richard Dawkins, explore the
subject.



From here.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 08 March 2007 08:53 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here is a question for you; how did the first "unit" of life come to existence, and how did it look like?

And here’s an answer for you:

Origins of Life on Earth

quote:
One could argue that the theory of evolution is equally absurd.

And one would be incredibly stupid or dishonest to do so.

The fact is evolution is more than just a theory; it’s a hard and established fact. While there are many theories about evolution and the origins of life and where it’s headed, evolution itself—natural selection, adaptation and modification, the old dying out to make way for the new, etc.—are irrefutable since they are around us everywhere every day. It's a fact of life, and all schools of science, as well as any sane reasonable school of thought, recognize it.

To deny it is like denying that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, etc. there are all kinds of theories as to why, or even how, the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth, but no one disputes that that's actually what's going on.

Yet that is exactly what these so-called “creationists” and “intelligent design” trash are out to do—and in so doing undermining the long-fought-for freedom of thought, scientific reason and burden of proof open free public education, and instead driving society back to a totalitarian era of prejudice, persecution and taboo.

That is and always has been THE ONE goal of the Religious Right—the iron-fisted entrenchment of rigid unquestioning obedience to corporate capitalism and the state institutions that govern it (and us).

"Creationism" isn't even a theory. It's a twisted perversion of the myths of the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, that provide the basis for life values to be used for a vicious self-serving political agenda.

Any decent religious scholar or practitioner--and I have talked with many--will tell you that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors by people who were trying to interpret visions, which they believed were divinely inspired, to spell out a powerful code of ethics and value system for people.

That's why the myths, fables and legends of the bible don't correspond very well to practical reality, but the values and morals definitely do--and that's what important basis of its message.

In other words, a real Christian, Moslem or Jew (the three religions based on the bible) couldn't care less whether there actually was a piece of real estate someplace known as the Garden of Eden. What's important is the symbolism of the garden and the values it represented and the life lessons to be learned from its story.

It's not practical earth science, and it never was intended to be. Twisting into some literal interpretation was the key way the churches of the feudal dark ages and the colonialist era used to terrorize people, suppress free thought and keep them in line.

The corporate "Christian right" in the US is trying to do the same thing today. Pushing the philosophical basis of the bible as earth science is not only an insult to people, science and free thought, but an insult to biblical values themselves, and whoever does this, as far as I'm concerned, should condemned as a heretic.

It's interesting to note the "Christian right" that tries to shove this crap down people's throats doesn't seem to be encumbered by any of the biblical values, such as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule and the practices of compassion, love thy neighbour (regardless of who thy neighbour is), forgiving sins and transgressions and, most importantly, judge not lest ye be judged.

Instead they kill, main, torture, slander, imprison and deport anybody who isn't exactly like them, doesn't swear total allegiance to the US government and blindly follow the dictates of Corporate America.

Could this idiot senator, instead of wasting public resources on such a stupid adventure, propose a bill that would call for a strategy to help reduce that country’s huge chronic and worsening poverty? Nope.

Actually, the Book of Revelation in the bible warns of the rise of all kinds of false prophets that use Christian rhetoric to rip-off and exploit people. Thanks to the US religious right, that biblical prophecy has obviously come true.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 08 March 2007 09:19 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:
...I didn’t mean to imply by my question that Darwin’s theory of evolution is meant to explain what the first “unit of life” looked like, but the theory is built on the assumption that first “unit of life” has the capability to start that chain reaction. ...
Note the intellectual dishonesty here, implying that the first ever organism somehow (willfully) started a process of evolution, and that this absurd idea somehow undermines the theory of evolution. But, of course, the theory of evolution doesn't even make that claim, any more than the theory of gravity claims to explain the creation of matter.

And what assumption is Creationism built on? That a magical "first unit of life", ie God, started everything. Well, then, where did God come from? Who created God? If creationists think that the theory of evolution fails to explain how the first living organism came about, then why don't they see the failure of religion to explain how God came about?

Personally, I find it easier to believe that naturally occurring organic molecules, under the right conditions, might form into the simplest of single-cell organisms, than to think that a magical being of completely unknown origin created all living things in a span of several days. But that is just my opinion.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 March 2007 09:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
It's interesting to note the "Christian right" that tries to shove this crap down people's throats doesn't seem to be encumbered by any of the biblical values, such as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule and the practices of compassion, love thy neighbour (regardless of who thy neighbour is), forgiving sins and transgressions and, most importantly, judge not lest ye be judged.

Instead they kill, main, torture, slander, imprison and deport anybody who isn't exactly like them, doesn't swear total allegiance to the US government and blindly follow the dictates of Corporate America.

Actually, the Book of Revelation in the bible warns of the rise of all kinds of false prophets that use Christian rhetoric to rip-off and exploit people. Thanks to the US religious right, that biblical prophecy has obviously come true.


Excellent post, and you have a good point about the so called Christian Fundamentalists" who try to shove these lies as truth and who brainwash their children into falsehoods, should be condemned as heretics, plus a whole lot more.

As you noted with you examples, they are so far away from the teachings of the Christ consciouness as to be be ANTI. One wonders why they cannot see it?

Are they so intellectually lazy?

Are they so lacking in self-esteem they have to somehow make themselves feel superior?

Or are they just not all there?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 09 March 2007 12:19 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personally, I find it easier to believe that naturally occurring organic molecules, under the right conditions, might form into the simplest of single-cell organisms, than to think that a magical being of completely unknown origin created all living things in a span of several days. But that is just my opinion.
Actually, it is more than just your opinion; it is basic logic.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 09 March 2007 12:29 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So riddle me this, CC: If the purporters of intelligent design truly believe that evolution is guided by the hand of God, then isn't it the height of human arrogance, and offensive to the Christian soul to see this?

Does the Bible not say: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"?

What right do pharmaceutical companies have to patent God's highest creation? And why aren't the Christian right protesting this?

[ 09 March 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 09 March 2007 06:08 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

What right do pharmaceutical companies have to patent God's highest creation? And why aren't the Christian right protesting this?
[/QB]


Contemporary conservative Christians are hooked on the belief that capitalism and 'The Market' are some kind of moral absolute. Another example of this mentality is their hostility to environmental protection and their insistence that global climate change is 'junk science'.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 09 March 2007 12:17 PM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would a “freak of nature” that caused the first non-life to become life have constructed such a complex system that is “more complex than any machinery built by man” with no mistakes?

With no mistakes? What about our appendix? What about our tonsils? What about dozens of other "design flaws" in current life forms not to mention the millions of failures illustrated by the fossil record?

From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 March 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Noise, are you saying that if I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution I am automatically a member of The Discovery Institute?

Nope, but I'm saying everything you've posted up here is a complete reguritation from those people. Look, I'll give you some credit if you can find a link to anything supporting what you say that is NEWER THAN 1981. It's as pathetic as quoting 1980's information in the global warming debate. The era most of you're quotes come from is the same era we used a 'plum pudding' model for what an atom looked like.


quote:
Trying to imagine what the simplest unit of life would be that is capable of surviving its environment, feeding, changing food to energy, excreting, and have the mechanism to reproduce, etc.

If you were capable of reading research thats dated later than 1980, than you might ahve come across that we've located life that does not need to feed, can live in space, and yet be capable of seeding a planet. Red Rain is a start to the idea (notice the article date of June 2006 and not sometime in 1861 ^^). We know much beyond the repetative shit you are so far saying, because the shit you are repeating is the same shit certain group have been saying since the articles you are referring to came out.

I'm not sure if you are purposefully doing this, or if you're simply ignorant of the sceintific method... Sceince changes, and embracing sceince comes with the knowledge that what you've embraced can change and we learn new things. Sceintists don't set out to prove the theory of evolution is correct, they set out to prove it's wrong and alter the theory to match the new results.

I'm through with this... I'll let you go back to arguing what we've already disproved and moved on from some 20 years ago.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 09 March 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a concise statement from the US National Academy of Sciences about why "intelligent design" should not be taught as science in schools:
quote:
Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.



National Academy of Sciences Statement

From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 12 March 2007 10:54 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They ripped me off, that's pretty much what I said
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 March 2007 07:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Further proof of Darwinism at work
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 13 March 2007 05:34 AM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Scientific American on Creationism

quote:
In science, ``fact'' can only mean ``confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Stephen Jay Gould


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca