Oregon Biology Teacher Fired Over Bible References

[Dos Equis]

well I guess you really like this book.  Why do you keep on a copy on the shelf in your office?

I honestly don't really care about the theory of evolution or not. 

the entire poplation of the planet up to this point has lived and died and it didn't make any difference

I've got my own theories which I think are brilliant

but they don't really make any difference either

I keep a copy, first because I have a pretty large collection of many of the books I've read, and second because it's a very good analysis of an important issue.  I read a lot and I'm always looking for and recommending good books.  Not trying to preach to you.  Got any you'd like to recommend?   

I don't lose any sleep over the evolution/creation/intelligent design thing either.     

[Dos Equis]

Just heard this guy on the radio this morning - Dr. Jeffrey Simmons.  He was talking about his book "Billions of Missing Links:  A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain."  In the short segment I heard, he talked about some of the same things discussed in Behe's book, like blood clotting, that couldn't have evolved over time.  Interesting discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0724057-8675849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174489909&sr=8-1

[militarymuscle69]

.   

BTW - I actually believe that the origin of man is still a mystery but I don't by default assume that the creation story from the bible must then be true  - maybe that's the difference.

I love libs...."well just because we haven't found any (yet) doesn't prove your point"...I guess it must prove his though Beach!! LMAO

[Straw Man]

Just heard this guy on the radio this morning - Dr. Jeffrey Simmons.  He was talking about his book "Billions of Missing Links:  A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain."  In the short segment I heard, he talked about some of the same things discussed in Behe's book, like blood clotting, that couldn't have evolved over time.  Interesting discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0724057-8675849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174489909&sr=8-1

BB - this is more of the same argument which basically is that life, as evaluated by our feeble  human mind,  is so complicated that we can't figure out how it could how come about through evolution therefore it must be be intelligent design (aka - biblical creationism).   

again from Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science.

I won't list all the judges conclusions but here's one that I think is particularly salient as it addresses the logical fallacy which you've made on other issues and which I addressed in previous posts using the  magic rock example from the Simpsons:

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution[/b], as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design[/b]. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

Richard Dawkins addresses this in his usual blunt manner:

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."

[Straw Man]

I love libs...."well just because we haven't found any (yet) doesn't prove your point"...I guess it must prove his though Beach!! LMAO

actually no it doesn't and you're making exactly the same mistake.   

They start with a fallacious "either or" scenario and then they say we can't prove one side so that MUST mean the other side is right.

Here's an example:

I wanted to make sure it didn't rain today so I prayed to Ra the Sun God and lo and behold it didn't rain.  This must prove:

A:  Ra exists
B:  He answered my prayer

Can you prove that is not true.......NO

Does that make it true.....NO

[militarymuscle69]

actually no it doesn't and you're making exactly the same mistake.   

They start with a fallacious "either or" scenario and then they say we can't prove one side so that MUST mean the other side is right.

Here's an example:

I wanted to make sure it didn't rain today so I prayed to Ra the Sun God and lo and behold it didn't rain.  This must prove:

A:  Ra exists
B:  He answered my prayer

Can you prove that is not true.......NO

Does that make it true.....NO

I didn't say "either or" but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Darwin had good ideas. The earth has evolved, but I think it was created intelligently. Now to me that means god and I will believe that. But I don't tell muslims, or buddists or others that they are wrong. I don't even tell you that Darwin is wrong. I am a creationevolutionist....

[Dos Equis]

BB - this is more of the same argument which basically is that life, as evaluated by our feeble  human mind,  is so complicated that we can't figure out how it could how come about through evolution therefore it must be be intelligent design (aka - biblical creationism).   

It's not nearly that simple.  It's primarily an argument about "irreducible complexity."  Even Darwin acknowledged this was a potential problem for him:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  

Origin of Species at 154.

Behe describes irreducibly complex this way:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a power challenge to Darwinian evolution. . . ."

Darwin's Black Box at 39.  

He then discusses a number of irreducibly complex systems in our bodies and in nature, including cilium, "bacterial flagellum," blood clotting, the bombardier beetle, etc.  These systems could not have evolved gradually over time, because each portion of the system is dependent on the other.  

But I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, because this theory has been discredited, so says your wiki link.  

Also, my last post was about Dr. Jeffrey Simmons and his book "Billions of Missing Links:  A Rational Look at the  Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain."  Not sure what a criticism of Behe has to do with Dr. Simmons.  But I am certain you can find a link somewhere "discrediting" him too.  

What I found interesting in looking up Dr. Simmons' book is the wealth of other materials that have been written on this issue.  

[Straw Man]

It's not nearly that simple.  It's primarily an argument about "irreducible complexity."  Even Darwin acknowledged this was a potential problem for him:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  

Origin of Species at 154.

Behe describes irreducibly complex this way:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a power challenge to Darwinian evolution. . . ."

Darwin's Black Box at 39.  

He then discusses a number of irreducibly complex systems in our bodies and in nature, including cilium, "bacterial flagellum," blood clotting, the bombardier beetle, etc.  These systems could not have evolved gradually over time, because each portion of the system is dependent on the other.  

But I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, because this theory has been discredited, so says your wiki link.  

Also, my last post was about Dr. Jeffrey Simmons and his book "Billions of Missing Links:  A Rational Look at the  Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain."  Not sure what a criticism of Behe has to do with Dr. Simmons.  But I am certain you can find a link somewhere "discrediting" him too.  

What I found interesting in looking up Dr. Simmons' book is the wealth of other materials that have been written on this issue.  

the theory of evolution is certainly not simple and also not fully understood  but the method Behe and others use is not valid and that's why their  "theory of ID" is discredited or at the least lacks credibility among their peers.

Their basic argument is that evolution (see examples you've sighted above) is so complicated that we can't understand how it could work THEREFORE it can't be true....... then they use that argument as some sort of PROOF that their position (Intelligent Design) is true.   

More from the trial:

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[32]

'As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[33]

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

[Straw Man]

I didn't say "either or" but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Darwin had good ideas. The earth has evolved, but I think it was created intelligently. Now to me that means god and I will believe that. But I don't tell muslims, or buddists or others that they are wrong. I don't even tell you that Darwin is wrong. I am a creationevolutionist....

your personal position makes more sense to me than the ID proponents and their methods. 

You acknowledge that your beliefs about the origins of life (not trying to put words in your mouth) are based on your religious beliefs.   It's not science but then you're not suggesting it's science and that's the difference. 

 

[militarymuscle69]

your personal position makes more sense to me than the ID proponents and their methods. 

You acknowledge that your beliefs about the origins of life (not trying to put words in your mouth) are based on your religious beliefs.   It's not science but then you're not suggesting it's science and that's the difference. 

 

I see your point. I don't base everything I do on religion but in this case when I look out the window it is hard for me to not see some sort of intelligence involved. I mean it is amazing how everything from the cluds to the ants has a role....I don't know man...

[Dos Equis]

I see your point. I don't base everything I do on religion but in this case when I look out the window it is hard for me to not see some sort of intelligence involved. I mean it is amazing how everything from the cluds to the ants has a role....I don't know man...

I agree.  I have spent a lot of time outdoors, hiking, beach, mountains, etc. and I see way too much order, beauty, and sophistication to believe that this is all an accident. 

[Camel Jockey]

I agree.  I have spent a lot of time outdoors, hiking, beach, mountains, etc. and I see way too much order, beauty, and sophistication to believe that this is all an accident. 

Jesus christ man!  It's not an accident but natural selection. I don't know how anyone who isn't biased cannot see that natural selection has been proven, whether you believe god created the first simple organisms or that they came about some other way. Oh, and Mountains and beaches were formed via plate tectonics.

For anyone who's starting to doubt god and is looking down the path od atheism then I would advise you to read Richard Dawkins' book:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

[Camel Jockey]

I see your point. I don't base everything I do on religion but in this case when I look out the window it is hard for me to not see some sort of intelligence involved. I mean it is amazing how everything from the cluds to the ants has a role....I don't know man...

You don't know what was involved, so in other words you are simply making assumptions. Biology and Darwin did the same thing except for the fact that they backed up their claims with science. When Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance were rediscovered it kind of validated Darwin. Look into into the laws of inheritance, recessive and dominant genes and you'll see that Darwin was right when he said natural selection is how everything came about. Now whether you believe god created the first simple single celled organisms or not is up to you because ultimately none of us know. What we do know is how they evolved and that is through natural selection.

[militarymuscle69]

You don't know what was involved, so in other words you are simply making assumptions. Biology and Darwin did the same thing except for the fact that they backed up their claims with science. When Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance were rediscovered it kind of validated Darwin. Look into into the laws of inheritance, recessive and dominant genes and you'll see that Darwin was right when he said natural selection is how everything came about. Now whether you believe god created the first simple single celled organisms or not is up to you because ultimately none of us know. What we do know is how they evolved and that is through natural selection.

Yeah I admitted that a few posts up....

[Straw Man]

Jesus christ man!  It's not an accident but natural selection. I don't know how anyone who isn't biased cannot see that natural selection has been proven, whether you believe god created the first simple organisms or that they came about some other way. Oh, and Mountains and beaches were formed via plate tectonics.

For anyone who's starting to doubt god and is looking down the path od atheism then I would advise you to read Richard Dawkins' book:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

come on man we were all getting along so nicely there for about 5 minutes

Personally,I like Dawkins but he can be a bit pedantic and overbearing at times and I can see how would put off a lot of people.   

[tu_holmes]

Scientoligsts have a belief about the lack of a "human" missing link.

Is it any more or less believable than any other?

[Tre]

I agree.  I have spent a lot of time outdoors, hiking, beach, mountains, etc. and I see way too much order, beauty, and sophistication to believe that this is all an accident. 

I'm down with that.

What I don't buy into, though, are the stories about prophets and saviors and whatnot.

[Straw Man]

I keep a copy, first because I have a pretty large collection of many of the books I've read, and second because it's a very good analysis of an important issue.  I read a lot and I'm always looking for and recommending good books.  Not trying to preach to you.  Got any you'd like to recommend?    

I don't lose any sleep over the evolution/creation/intelligent design thing either.     

I missed this the first time around.  Check out Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.  It's only ~ 100 pages and a quick read.  His other book, End of Faith, is also excellent but quite a bit longer. The Letter to a Christian Nation was  his response to all the christians who wrote him after his first book was published.   I've read them both.

[Dos Equis]

I'm down with that.

What I don't buy into, though, are the stories about prophets and saviors and whatnot.

Understood.  You don't have to buy the prophets, saviors, etc. to question Darwin's theory, or believe there is some kind of intelligent involvement behind our planet.  

[Dos Equis]

I missed this the first time around.  Check out Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.  It's only ~ 100 pages and a quick read.  His other book, End of Faith, is also excellent but quite a bit longer. The Letter to a Christian Nation was  his response to all the christians who wrote him after his first book was published.   I've read them both.

O.K.  Thanks.

[Straw Man]

O.K.  Thanks.

no problem - you can also watch Harris here:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975633975283704512

This is an excellent talk and it was the first time I heard about Harris which led me to his two books

The old guy in the beginning is only on for a few sec's to introduce Harris