right. there are people far smarter than i who are advocates of ID...again, not as scientific theory...but advocates of the idea that the inherent complexity in organisms means there was likely a creator. we can agree or disagree with that notion...but these aren't idiots coming up with these conclusions. i think i've brough up the bacterial flagellum argument before, right? not sure if you read it. essentially, darwin said that if you could show any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, his theory would break down. in the flagellum, ALL parts have to be present to make the organism move. it spins at 1000 rmp and it's tiny. there are somewhere between 30-35 proteins needed to make it work...eliminate even one, and it doesn't spin, and is utterly useless. it simply can not "evolve," because it's an all-or-nothing thing.
i'm simply talking about the theory, No Worries. in order to be a scientific theory it has to some facets which are proveable and/or refutable. Darwin starts with the premise of simplicity --> complexity. when that presmise gets battered, so does the theory. and if what you're saying is true, then we need to start re-writing the science books immediately. the reason you have such adamant backlash against evolution is because its proponents tend to assert it as fact and snub their noses at anyone who would question it...as if it's unquestionable. that is one of the factors that creates the environment for this debate that takes it outside of a scientific discussion.
But that's the only reason that this is such an issue. Why else would they care SO MUCH about this? What is at stake? Christians flip-flopped and are now in love with the big bang once they realized it can be aligned with their faith. I guess we will just have to wait it out on this one. You can't tell me life has not evolved on this planet. Life could of been transported here from another part of space. Who knows? All I know is that entities appear only when the right causes and conditions are present, and fail to appear when the right causes and conditions are absent. Quit looking for a magician.
it's an issue because it's presented as fact, meowgi. because despite findings which are problematic for it, it still finds a way to be asserted as fact. i get the sense you have sort of an axe to grind with Christians, in general....is that true? i have yet to see anyone assert Jesus Christ in this thread. i have yet to see anyone say, "hey, it ain't in the Bible so it didn't happen!!" we've had a pretty well-reasoned discussion here. and there are other faiths which represent themselves on this issue other than Christians. personally, i don't need scientific proof of God...i don't need for the shroud of turin to be genuine...i don't need as ossuary to read Jesus' brothers name. that's not where my faith comes from. but i notice you have a habit of asserting your ideas as truths...and then calling out others when they do the same.
No, it's an ISSUE because it challenges people's beliefs. Where else is scientific thoery such a hotbed of controversy here other than the creation of the universe... I dont see schoolboards talking about other scientific theories. Why is that? It's just badgering. That's my axe on this one.
Evolution is the best theory we have, given the facts that we know. No more, no less. Truth is most students (and HS teachers I suspect) do not know the difference between scientific theory and law. If HS texts are clear about this especially wrt evolution (which would surprise me given the current environment), the texts should be corrected. BTW, I find it completely disingenuous to say that the backlash is a result of scientists overstating their case. The backlash is from the "Satan buried the Dino bones to test our faith" crowd, which makes up 99+% of the ID proponents. Did you catch the blurb above out how the ID proponents believe ID is correct (the scientific deep thinkers they are) while actually not reading and/or understanding evolution theory for what it is? Leave science to the scientists.
No, I don't think them idiots. But I do think them confusing. How is it that one can be scientific and imaginative, querying and testing to prove/disprove and then just stop? Why is it that these scientists refuse to looks deeper at these subjects and instead just assume an "irreducable complexity"? It's almost dishonest. Behe (whose book I assume you gathered this from) and all the other ID advocates continually bring this one up. It's that nasty "complex organ" problem that Darwin initially tried to resolve in Origin. It is interesting to note that Behe never claims evolution did not happen, he just applies "God did it" in cases such as this. Anyhow, let me try to counter. Lots of sciences face all sorts of unresolved questions. Behe's own discussions of cilia acknowledge that there's a lot still to learn about molecular structure and its contributions to function. Rationally then, the fact that evolutionary biologists haven't yet come up with a sequence of organisms culminating in bacteria with flagella or cilia might be regarded as signaling a need for further research on how such bacteria evolved. Not so! declares Behe. We have here "irreducible complexity," and it's just impossible to imagine a sequence of organisms adding component molecules to build the structures up gradually. That makes no sense and in essence underlies the premise and flaw in ID as a scientific theory. It comes down to making a choice to no longer look for scientific evidence and to abandon the associated methodology. That choice is faith. Back to the topic, the flagellum argument is just as convoluded as the ID theory it desires to "prove". Maybe the immediate precursor of the possessor of the flagellum is a bacterium in which all the protein constituents were already present, but in which some other feature of the cell chemistry interferes with the reaction that builds the flagellum. A genetic change removes the interference (maybe a protein assumes a slightly different configuration, binding to something that would have bound to one of the constituents of the flagellum, preventing the assembly). Is there proof for this scenario? Of course not, and neither is there proof for Behe's theory of impossible combination. Behe tries to argue throughout his whole book that the precursors and intermediates required by darwinian evolutionary theory couldn't have existed. What he does not state is that Behe himself is just as ignorant about the molecular basis of development as his darwinian opponents. However, again and again, Behe disguises his ignorance by suggesting to the reader that the Darwinian story must take a very particular form that it has to consist in something like the simple addition of components, for example and on that basis he can manufacture the illusion of giving an impossibility proof. The flagellum argument has been rendered moot. But that has not stopped ID from using it still.
rhada -- but you don't have to make the jump of pointing to faith to undermine evolution in exactly the way Darwin said could be done. i'm not making the argument about flagellum because of my faith...i don't have to. the argument stands on its own. it's a very complex organ...and it seems nearly impossible that it would evolve because of the complexity built in. we're gonna get way out of my league very quickly. this is not an issue that i care much about. i just think it's funny to hear people claim those that would assert ID are necessarily closed-minded...because i see the same closed-mindedness from the other side of this argument. as for me...this has absolutely no bearing on my faith.
I understand that - and was not referring to you in making the comment regarding "faith". That comment is really with regard to those like Behe, who proclaim themselves scientifically motivated but their argument is exactly the opposite. I try not to be close-minded, and hope I am not coming off as such. I am actually trying to avoid the religious side of the question - other than to point out that I feel ID does not belong in a science classroom.
Precisely, which is why ID has its place in Sunday school rather than regular school - but I don't know if it even has a place there. It's a non-theory theory at its core and many of its proponents try to masquerade it as something else.
i hear ya, and i hope i don't come off as close-minded, either. you certainly don't. and like you, i'm trying to avoid the religious side of the question as well.
nd it seems nearly impossible that it would evolve because of the complexity built in. It is complex due to our ignorance. 100 years from now we will likely consider it less complex. Where will that leave ID? I suspect moving onward to the next complex issue.
I don't see an argument. I see a group of people who make up their own wishful conclusions based on the best improvable SCIENTIFIC theory we have, then crying when it isn't accepted. (Kansas school board meeting types who don't like the thought that we have a common ancestor with a chimp) You say you are avoiding the religious aspect of this but we all know that's what it comes down to. The only true problem most have with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't jive well with some peoples faith. They don't really care that it is "being taught as fact". They care that it causes problems with their faiths. You would hear about 1% about this "controversy" that you hear now if it wasn't for it. That's why it's so covered in religious journals etc. Plus the who "it's soo complex" that it most have been done with a sort of ID is a lame cop-out to a lot of people. It doesn't make you close minded to stick with scientific reasoning. Personally I don't believe nothing comes from nothing, but I'm not going to protest the science behind that (big bang) and I'm not going to cry about the science books in the schools. That would be stupid.
you're missing the point, NW. it isn't ID making this claim. that's a separate assertion. the assertion about the complexity of the cell is coming from science. i give up. i'm not arguing for ID. but again, you're proving the point. "doesn't matter what new discoveries find!! because evolution is true, and eventually it will prove itself!" yeah..that's real science
Evolution is a theory that best describes the facts as we currently know them. Evolution theory will likely change when we become less ignorant. If that change leads to incorporating ID elements or if that change leads to moving further away from ID, then so be it.
