Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 20, 2007, 08:34:20 AM
-
Oregon Biology Teacher Fired Over Bible References
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
SISTERS, Ore. — During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.
"I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line," board member Jeff Smith said. "It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do in our classrooms."
Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.
"Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master's degree in science from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking."
Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. "I never taught creationism," he said. "I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it."
Parent John Rahm told the newspaper that he became concerned when his freshman daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by Helphinstine.
"He took passages that had all kinds of Biblical references," Rahm said. "It prevented her from learning what she needed to learn."
Board members met with Helphinstine privately for about 90 minutes before the meeting. The teacher did not stay for the public portion.
"How many minds did he pollute?" Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259844,00.html
-
what possible relevence could a mythology book have in a biology class
-
what possible relevence could a mythology book have in a biology class
I agree. Precisely why they should keep Darwin's "The Origin of the Species" out of the biology classroom. :)
-
I agree. Precisely why they should keep Darwin's "The Origin of the Species" out of the biology classroom. :)
you're joking right. Why don't we just go back to biblical times and use all their science and medicine.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that the bible is a book of mythology and has no place in public school other than maybe in a class of about ancient myth
-
you're joking right. Why don't we just go back to biblical times and use all their science and medicine.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that the bible is a book of mythology and has no place in public school other than maybe in a class of about ancient myth
Partly. I don't think public schools should force students to take religious classes.
And yes I was joking about the Bible being a "book of mythology." What I do believe is the theory of evolution makes no sense. In reality, it sounds as much like a fairy tale as the creation theory.
If you're interested, I recommend reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Helped me understand the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0724057-8675849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174422872&sr=8-1
-
Careful BB,
You might conjure up the ghost of Johnny Apollo and reunite this board ;D
-
Careful BB,
You might conjure up the ghost of Johnny Apollo and reunite this board ;D
LOL. That yellowbellied coward? I'm not afraid of him. :D
-
Partly. I don't think public schools should force students to take religious classes.
And yes I was joking about the Bible being a "book of mythology." What I do believe is the theory of evolution makes no sense. In reality, it sounds as much like a fairy tale as the creation theory.
If you're interested, I recommend reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Helped me understand the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0724057-8675849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174422872&sr=8-1
1. of course public schools should not be forced students to take religions classes. That would be ludicrous
2. Evolution is the best science we have at this point although I agree it does have some gaps but no credible scientist would teach biblical creationism. If you're going to start teaching religious creation myths then I think we'd have to include all the religions of the worlds. I'm partial to Vishnu myself
-
1. of course public schools should not be forced students to take religions classes. That would be ludicrous
2. Evolution is the best science we have at this point although I agree it does have some gaps but no credible scientist would teach biblical creationism. If you're going to start teaching religious creation myths then I think we'd have to include all the religions of the worlds. I'm partial to Vishnu myself
Behe would. :)
"Some gaps" is an understatement. Try the complete absence of transitional fossils.
-
Behe would. :)
"Some gaps" is an understatement. Try the complete absence of transitional fossils.
well just because we haven't found any (yet) doesn't prove your point.
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.
-
what possible relevence could a mythology book have in a biology class
The same reason mythology is taught in world lit classes.
-
Partly. I don't think public schools should force students to take religious classes.
When you look at the importance of religion in world affairs, you HAVE to prepare young people to deal with these whackos.
Even though I personally hate religion, I actually think there's a lot of value in learning about it.
-
The same reason mythology is taught in world lit classes.
I'm fine with that. I'd even be fine with using the bible in a lit class.
But why would you need a bible in biology class?
-
well just because we haven't found any (yet) doesn't prove your point.
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 didn't say the complete absence of transitional fossils proves my point (whatever my point was). It helps disprove Darwin's theory.
I believe in the theory of intelligent design. Certain parts are a mystery to me, but from a commonsense standpoint it is more believable than my uncle being a monkey. :)
-
When you look at the importance of religion in world affairs, you HAVE to prepare young people to deal with these whackos.
Even though I personally hate religion, I actually think there's a lot of value in learning about it.
LOL. I resemble that remark. :) I'm one of those "whacko" religious persons.
-
I'm fine with that. I'd even be fine with using the bible in a lit class.
But why would you need a bible in biology class?
"The bible says, but science proves..."
I have no problem with a person who wants to help kids to develop their critical thinking skills and comparative analysis is an integral part of that.
-
I believe in the theory of intelligent design. Certain parts are a mystery to me, but from a commonsense standpoint it is more believable ...
Yeah, but I developed that theory (I called it simply 'creative evolution') when I was a 14-year-old kid living in rural North Carolina.
Do you really think *I* would be capable of creating something you would believe in??? :D
There has to be a creative force out there somewhere, because the only things man can do are discover and destroy.
-
I didn't say the complete absence of transitional fossils proves my point (whatever my point was). It helps disprove Darwin's theory.
I believe in the theory of intelligent design. Certain parts are a mystery to me, but from a commonsense standpoint it is more believable than my uncle being a monkey. :)
intelligent design is usually code for biblical creationism. If not, what designer are you referring to because again I'm partial the Hindu story on this one
The absense of fossils may cast doubt on Darwins theory but it doesn't necessarily disprove it
-
intelligent design is usually code for biblical creationism. If not, what designer are you referring to because again I'm partial the Hindu story on this one
The absense of fossils may cast doubt on Darwins theory but it doesn't necessarily disprove it
I'm referring to God, obviously. I just cannot believe that everything I see in nature and with the human body is some accident.
I said the absence of transitional fossils "helps disprove Darwin's theory."
-
I'm referring to God, obviously. I just cannot believe that everything I see in nature and with the human body is some accident.
I said the absence of transitional fossils "helps disprove Darwin's theory."
Which god are you "obviously" talking about?
-
With regards to your question, you have to keep in mind that there were evolutionary 'leaps' as well. And we see mutations all the time.
Where the bible breaks down completely is when it tries to argue that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
If you start from a lie, how do you derive any truths?
-
Which god are you "obviously" talking about?
Mine. And yours. :)
-
Mine. And yours. :)
WTF?
I didn't know you were Hindu
-
LOL. I resemble that remark. :) I'm one of those "whacko" religious persons.
You seem ok to me.
I'm actually cool with God...well, except for all the murders he's responsible for.
My real problem is with religion. 'Men of God' have killed far more people than God has...and for what? sheesh
Religion is truly the most evil institution this world has ever known. That is not a debatable point.
-
I think it's just terrible.... They're just hurting the kids.
I remember being a young lad and had to sit through in school suspension... It was quite well known that the ISS teacher was a bible guy and if you could get him started on religion you could sit all day and not have to do a single bit of work.
Well it was about 9:30am and I was just tired of working, so I started the religious discussion... suffice it to say, the discussion lasted through lunch and most of the afternoon... I bet we stopped at around 2:30 in the afternoon (only 45 minutes left during the day).
It was GREAT!!!
How dare they take away a kids ability to con a teacher into slacking off... It's just deplorable.
-
Most evil institutions ever:
1) religion
2) Third Reich
3) Bush Family
-
I think it's just terrible.... They're just hurting the kids.
I remember being a young lad and had to sit through in school suspension... It was quite well known that the ISS teacher was a bible guy and if you could get him started on religion you could sit all day and not have to do a single bit of work.
Well it was about 9:30am and I was just tired of working, so I started the religious discussion... suffice it to say, the discussion lasted through lunch and most of the afternoon... I bet we stopped at around 2:30 in the afternoon (only 45 minutes left during the day).
It was GREAT!!!
How dare they take away a kids ability to con a teacher into slacking off... It's just deplorable.
LOL
Great post.
And I've got to agree with you - there's nothing better than a classroom where students can freely debate with the teachers from diametrically opposed viewpoints.
-
Most evil institutions ever:
1) religion
2) Third Reich
3) Bush Family
You wouldn't put Stalin over the Bushs?
Pol Pot?
Even The Ill family?
Seriously?
-
WTF?
I didn't know you were Hindu
lol. :)
-
You seem ok to me.
I'm actually cool with God...well, except for all the murders he's responsible for.
My real problem is with religion. 'Men of God' have killed far more people than God has...and for what? sheesh
Religion is truly the most evil institution this world has ever known. That is not a debatable point.
Sure it's debatable. Men have done some evil things in the name of religion. It's the people who corrupt religion, not the other way around. It's like our Constitution and our system of government. Nearly flawless on paper. It's the people who screw it up.
-
I didn't say the complete absence of transitional fossils proves my point (whatever my point was). It helps disprove Darwin's theory.
I believe in the theory of intelligent design. Certain parts are a mystery to me, but from a commonsense standpoint it is more believable than my uncle being a monkey. :)
No it doesn't. ::) There are plenty of transitional fossils, such as mammal like reptiles. Reptiles to birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
Darwin's theory isn't just monkeys turning into people, it's natural selection. You cannot dispute natural selection, especially when it's happening before our very eyes. Natural selection is common sense.
-
lol. :)
Just kidding - Krom is my god
-
You wouldn't put Stalin over the Bushs?
Pol Pot?
Even The Ill family?
Seriously?
You figure that we're 50 years or so removed from the death of Stalin, not quite 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and Russia is doing reasonably well. When you look at the current strength of Germany in technology and commerce, one has to agree that the U.S.'s rebuilding plan worked to near-perfection there...East Germany had to be allowed to exist, though. And it WORKED.
The damage that Bush is doing to this country will resonate for the next 60-80 years minimum. That is my prediction.
-
You cannot dispute natural selection, especially when it's happening before our very eyes. Natural selection is common sense.
My daughter is smart, articulate, beautiful, tall, and athletic. And for good measure, she's also very kind.
She has excellent genetics. ;D
-
Just kidding - Krom is my god
My god will kick your gods ass!
(http://www.soulmateproductions.com/Media/folioimages/thor-58-07.gif)
-
No it doesn't. ::) There are plenty of transitional fossils, such as mammal like reptiles. Reptiles to birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
Darwin's theory isn't just monkeys turning into people, it's natural selection. You cannot dispute natural selection, especially when it's happening before our very eyes. Natural selection is common sense.
Dude those aren't transitional fossils. If we all came from some single-cell creature, the fossil record would be replete with animals part way through their alleged transformation. The complete absence of this record is one of the primary holes in the evolution theory.
-
Just kidding - Krom is my god
Arnold, in his prime, is about as close to a god on Earth as you'll get. :)
-
Arnold, in his prime, is about as close to a god on Earth as you'll get. :)
not for me but if it works for you that's cool
-
No one has encapsulated the evolution vs creationism debate as sharply as Bill Maher.
"There's the theory accepted by every reputable scientist on the planet. Then there's the story about the naked lady and the snake."
I think that people who deny evolution should be denied all the other fruits of scientific inquiry as well: cars, electric lights, modern medicine, etc.
-
"There's the theory accepted by every reputable scientist on the planet. Then there's the story about the naked lady and the snake."
LOL - Great one.
It's all about people trying to control who you fuck.
-
No one has encapsulated the evolution vs creationism debate as sharply as Bill Maher.
"There's the theory accepted by every reputable scientist on the planet. Then there's the story about the naked lady and the snake."
I think that people who deny evolution should be denied all the other fruits of scientific inquiry as well: cars, electric lights, modern medicine, etc.
excellent
-
Wouldn't creationism put the earth about 11,000 to 13,000 years old? ::)
-
Dude those aren't transitional fossils. If we all came from some single-cell creature, the fossil record would be replete with animals part way through their alleged transformation. The complete absence of this record is one of the primary holes in the evolution theory.
This "alleged transformation" is natural selection. It suddenly didn't take place, but happened over years relative to which animals were sucessful in reproducing to pass on their traits, leading to strains, sub-species and eventually seperate species and genuses. The links I provided to you are examples of transitional animals that existed in the past and we know they existed because we've found their fossils. Try and understand how difficult it is to dig up the fossils of early creatures and then you'll see that we'll never find the fossil for every single organism that has existed on earth. And early organisms were single celled bacteria and there's no way in hell we'll be finding their fossils, unless you consider oil fossils.
What absence are you talking about? The record is perfectly clear to many scientists who based their arguements on science and good rational. The record is there for you to see, but it's clear that you don't want to accept it as religion is your preference. There's nothing wrong with religion or you stating your opinion on evolution, but please don't be bashing evolution when you're not even willing to look into the facts.
-
Wouldn't creationism put the earth about 11,000 to 13,000 years old? ::)
Right.
Starting from that premise, they have nowhere to go but down.
-
This "alleged transformation" is natural selection. It suddenly didn't take place, but happened over years relative to which animals were sucessful in reproducing to pass on their traits, leading to strains, sub-species and eventually seperate species and genuses. The links I provided to you are examples of transitional animals that existed in the past and we know they existed because we've found their fossils. Try and understand how difficult it is to dig up the fossils of early creatures and then you'll see that we'll never find the fossil for every single organism that has existed on earth. And early organisms were single celled bacteria and there's no way in hell we'll be finding their fossils, unless you consider oil fossils.
What absence are you talking about? The record is perfectly clear to many scientists who based their arguements on science and good rational. The record is there for you to see, but it's clear that you don't want to accept it as religion is your preference. There's nothing wrong with religion or you stating your opinion on evolution, but please don't be bashing evolution when you're not even willing to look into the facts.
The record isn't clear at all and I didn't mention religion at all when talking about the absence of transitional fossils. They don't exist. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Same with a cat. Mouse. Human. This is a huge problem for the evolution theory.
And I've looked at the facts, both for and against. Try reading "Darwin's Black Box." Raises issues that are fatal to the theory of evolution.
-
The record isn't clear at all and I didn't mention religion at all when talking about the absence of transitional fossils. They don't exist. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Same with a cat. Mouse. Human. This is a huge problem for the evolution theory.
And I've looked at the facts, both for and against. Try reading "Darwin's Black Box." Raises issues that are fatal to the theory of evolution.
BB - I haven't read the book but I did look up some info on the author and it really does appear that he's just a creationist.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.
Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.
In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:
"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."
By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was a public and critical success. Scientists however responded by arguing that Behe's arguments and examples were based only a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims
Scientists were again highly critical of the claims made about the research, pointing out that it not only had been shown that a supposedly Irreducibly Complex structure could evolve, but that it could do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions. They also objected to it being claimed as published evidence for design given that it offered no design theory or attempt to model the design process, and also failed to offer an alternative to evolution.
-
BB - I haven't read the book but I did look up some info on the author and it really does appear that he's just a creationist.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.
Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.
In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:
"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."
By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was a public and critical success. Scientists however responded by arguing that Behe's arguments and examples were based only a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims
Scientists were again highly critical of the claims made about the research, pointing out that it not only had been shown that a supposedly Irreducibly Complex structure could evolve, but that it could do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions. They also objected to it being claimed as published evidence for design given that it offered no design theory or attempt to model the design process, and also failed to offer an alternative to evolution.
Straw he's not a "creationist" (whatever that means). At least he wasn't when he wrote the book. He doesn't really discuss religion much at all in his book. He went into his research with an open mind and came to the conclusion that we are the result of intelligent design. His research centered around, among other things, the theory of "irreducibly complex" organisms/parts, etc. Some things, like the eye, have interrelated parts that could not have functioned without each part, which makes the theory of gradual development of individual parts impossible.
Unsurprisingly, the "scientific community" largely bashed him. They have to. He wrote a book that cuts directly against what they have been taught and have been teaching for years.
If you're interested, I highly recommend it. Very enlightening (to me anyway). It's not a religious book.
-
Straw he's not a "creationist" (whatever that means). At least he wasn't when he wrote the book. He doesn't really discuss religion much at all in his book. He went into his research with an open mind and came to the conclusion that we are the result of intelligent design. His research centered around, among other things, the theory of "irreducibly complex" organisms/parts, etc. Some things, like the eye, have interrelated parts that could not have functioned without each part, which makes the theory of gradual development of individual parts impossible.
Unsurprisingly, the "scientific community" largely bashed him. They have to. He wrote a book that cuts directly against what they have been taught and have been teaching for years.
If you're interested, I highly recommend it. Very enlightening (to me anyway). It's not a religious book.
intelligent design is basically biblical creationism in different clothes.
When I asked you earlier who is the the "designer" your answer was God.
I'm sure Behe's book isn't religious but his peers in the scientific community and even his own university don't recognize it as science either.
-
intelligent design is basically biblical creationism in different clothes.
When I asked you earlier who is the the "designer" your answer was God.
I'm sure Behe's book isn't religious but his peers in the scientific community and even his own university don't recognize it as science either.
Straw I could care less what others think. If you think a book you haven't read discussing theories you haven't considered have been discredited, then don't read it. I think he does a great job of explaining the problems with Darwin's theory in both lay and scientific terms, down to the cellular level. I keep his book on my office shelf.
-
Straw I could care less what others think. If you think a book you haven't read discussing theories you haven't considered have been discredited, then don't read it. I think he does a great job of explaining the problems with Darwin's theory in both lay and scientific terms, down to the cellular level. I keep his book on my office shelf.
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
-
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.
-
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
-
.
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
-
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."
-
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
-
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....
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
Scientoligsts have a belief about the lack of a "human" missing link.
Is it any more or less believable than any other?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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