Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by General Ludd
What's scientific about evolution, that puts it "beyond" creationism? Evolution isn't really about microbiology, molecular structure or any sort of "hard" science - it's about the interaction of life forms with each other and their environment.

Evolution is easily modeled mathematically. Creationism is arbitrary and all varieties are equally, ahem, probable.

Not quite true. You don't know the probability distribution, which is different from saying that everything is equiprobable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So basically, the universe just is. It had no beginning since there was no time before it. It simply is.

So basically, God just is. He had no beginning since there was no time before Him. He simply is.

[Az]

So basically, God just is. He had no beginning since there was no time before Him. He simply is.

I've already posted this.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So basically, God just is. He had no beginning since there was no time before Him. He simply is.

Yes.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And to go back a bit, why is the observed evolution of micro-organisms not adequate as proof that evolution occurs? As scientists are quick to point out, the only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is one of degree, not in its nature. Small evolutionary changes compoud to big ones, over time.

It's funny though, Creationists won't ever accept this reasoning, even though they'll happily misinterpret and extrapolate short-term data to "prove" the planet couldn't be more than a few thousand years old, such as with Earth's magnetic field...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

So basically, God just is. He had no beginning since there was no time before Him. He simply is.

I've already posted this.

: tongue : there's nothing wrong with double pwnage.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Yes.

Own goal.

[Az]

: tongue : there's nothing wrong with double pwnage.

God forbid, of course not!

Own goal.

Yep.

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat

Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer. We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.). And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

Shows how much you know about biology (that is, NOT MUCH).

Natural selection isn't just about random mutation, it is about keeping the mutations that increase reproductive fitness, and tossing out the ones that harm fitness. Evolution requires only 3 things: inherited variation, random mutation, and differential survival.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Because the life on this planet show a level of complexity, organization, functionality and content of information that clearly points to an intelligence.

Please cite an example. I await wild tales of bombadier beetles and flagella and eyeballs with eager anticipation.

Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer. We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.).

The "Watchmaker" argument was shown to be fallacious quite some time ago. That's all this is.

And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

Except that you'd need to show an example of things being "clearly" designed by an intelligence. No such clarity is scientifically extant. In fact, nature is so overflowing with juryrigging and design flaws that claims there is an intelligent designer behind it would indicate said designer is long voerdue for sacking for incompetence.

[Kuciwalker]

Except that you'd need to show an example of things being "clearly" designed by an intelligence. No such clarity is scientifically extant. In fact, nature is so overflowing with juryrigging and design flaws that claims there is an intelligent designer behind it would indicate said designer is long voerdue for sacking for incompetence.

Actually, given God's track record with everything else, I'd say the work's right on par.

[Az]

I'd just like to point out that life is not the only thing that "seems to be designed by intelligence" yet is not. There is a wide number of rock formations, christals, hell, even a snowflake, if you look through a microscope, that show very complex distinct paterns, all of which arise from a simple set of laws. This is fractal theory.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, given God's track record with everything else, I'd say the work's right on par.

True. God must have a cushy government job to have been able to keep it for so long whilst displaying such a knack for utter mismanagement.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer.

I've seen a guy build a TV set. I've never seen God create a lion. I fail to see how that would not bias my judgment whether they're "obviously" made by an intelligent designer.

There's also the little matter of there being a sensible alternate explanation for the lion ...

We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.).

That's meant to be the other way round? I mean, I've certainly designed a few things that did not have complexity, functionality, or organization ....

And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

The functionality of an animal is rather different from that of a glorified electronic toy; the later serves some usually easily identifiable external goal, prompting the question for the benefit of whom, while animals, as far as their (apparently) teleological behaviour is concerned, seem to serve only themselves and their kin. If they're works of an intelligent creator, the conclusion would seem to be they're art.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The fact is that evolution has a similar problem. No matter how far back you go, at some point you have to say that "nothing" led to "something". This completely violates the law of conservation of energy. True nothingness by definition is nothing and therefore cannot produce anything.

That isn't a problem of evolution, and the issue doesn't change one bit if you assume that ID perpetrated the biology we see.