[Galveston1]

This may surprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account. What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact. I doubt that you can say it isn't happening.

There's something else that this touches, although it might be more approriate in the philosophy thread. But since the two meet here, I'll present it.

Science, at best, has only a few answers as to the "how" of human life, and makes no pretense of addressing the "why". Now, don't blow this off! It is important. Human life MUST have meaning or it becomes unbearable for most people. I doubt that there are Atheists who have not chosen something to give meaning to their lives. I submit to you that it is impossible to have civilization without a real meaning for life. Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?

You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.

[Capuchin]

This may suprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account. What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact. I doubt that you can say it isn't happening.

You're not listening. A scientific theory is better, i.e. more pertaining to the real world, than a single fact.

[ordinaryguy]

This may suprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account.

No, it doesn't surprise me at all. If your interpretation of the Bible is the standard for determining what qualifies as "TRUE" science, it's easy to avoid the conflict.

What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact.

In scientific practice and terminology, fact and theory are not conflicting opposites, they are complimentary. The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all observable facts, i.e. experimental results, observations and measurements. The accumulation of facts that a theory can't explain and harmonize with previously known facts is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory. So the teaching of science has to convey the proper role and function of both facts (observations) and theories (explanations).

[templelane]

T Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this?

Great slippery slope you have going there!

When I was a child, I read the bible, got taught things from it and went to Sunday school. I also read encyclopaedias and learnt about dinosaurs (I used to know all the names). And basically by the age of seven I had put two and two together and worked it all out. I remember a Eureka moment in the bath when I realised as much as I wanted to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God it didn't make it real.

And then I realised there was no authority in my life I could do what I wanted! I turned to drugs and alcohol to fill the giant gap in my life and killed my brother in a fit of rage. Oh wait... I didn't. Because no one needs God for morality or direction. It comes for within. I take responsibility for my own actions.

Inthebox the clotting cascade is a fantastic example of how evolution can not only explain a complex process but also be used to test it. You test evolution by making predictions based on it and seeing if they are correct this article summarises this.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

It also demonstrates how something that appears irreducibly complex can exist in function parts that are later assemble or built upon. I hope you take the time to read it.

Of course the clotting cascade in itself does not prove evolution (also I did mention before proof is a mathematical concept so defunct for this argument anyway) but the numerous other process that contribute with it are what makes it a scientific fact.

[NeedKarma]

Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?

I agree with templelane. You seem confused or lost without a god but that's a personal issue with yourself, it's certainly not the case with others. I'm raising two great kids who don't read the bible or even know about a god and they are thriving. Why? Because they have great parents who teach them how to live with others and how to respect themselves. To further add to your failed argument, less intelligent and religious people commit suicide and kill others and classmates as well. Though in Canada we see much less of that than in *religious* US.

[jillianleab]

Science, at best, has only a few answers as to the "how" of human life, and makes no pretense of addressing the "why". Now, don't blow this off! It is important. Human life MUST have meaning or it becomes unbearable for most people. I doubt that there are Atheists who have not chosen something to give meaning to their lives. I submit to you that it is impossible to have civilization without a real meaning for life. Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?

You're right, this is getting a bit into philosophy, but since you changed the subject and it's your thread, I think it's OK!

Science, in general, does not attempt to answer the "why"; that's what philosophy is for. I'm not saying this isn't important, I'm just saying it's not a part of science - lots of things aren't a part of science. As others have said, belief in god is not a requirement for morals. Maybe for some it is (there have been people who have admitted were it not for their belief in god, they'd have no problem murdering their neighbor), but to say those without religion aren't accountable is false. True, atheists don't have someone accounting for their actions after they die, but they must account for their actions every single day of their life. I used this example in another thread, so if you read it, sorry, but I think it fits here too. Say you drive drunk, get into an accident, and kill someone. You feel horrible because you took an innocent life and made a stupid decision. You pray, and seek forgiveness from god; eventually, you feel you have repented and you are "good with god" again. You have someone to shoulder the guilt with you. Now put me in that situation - I have no one to share the guilt with. If I want to feel forgiven, I have to seek forgiveness from the family of the person I killed, likely, not an easy task. So maybe I'm not held accountable for my actions after I die, but I'm held accountable for them ever single day of my life - and the only people who can relieve my guilt are the ones I've wronged. That's where I get my morals from.

So really, I disagree with your situation with the child raised without god. A child raised with god is just as likely to be a bad person as a child raised without. It's the parenting - and from your hypothetical situation, you are implying atheists have no moral code. We do, it just doesn't come from a 2,000 year old book. I also disagree that "life is a drag" and suicide is the logical conclusion to the belief - If anything, atheists probably value life more because this is the only chance we get. Remember, once I die, that's it, game over. No pearly gates, no reunion with my loved ones, nothing. I never want to die - there's nothing in death to look forward to.

You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.

Public life should be secular in this country, at least as far as the government is concerned. Religion is for home, private school and church; not public school and government buildings. This is to provide equality to everyone. I disagree that we will fall like Communist countries have if we become more secular; atheism isn't what killed those societies, it was greed and corruption. And please don't try telling me Christian politicians are more moral than non-Christian politicians... History (and recent news) would prove you wrong! :)

The foundation of religion doesn't have to be taken from upcoming generations; religion can be taught at home, in private schools, and in churches. None of those places should be stifled when wanting to send their message, unless they are getting involved in politics. I'm not saying "let's send religion underground"; I'm saying keep it where it belongs - out of my government. Build churches, put ads on TV, put up Christmas trees, have a parade, build private schools, go door to door (please pass my house!), do all of that. But don't inject your theology in my government.

[inthebox]

Great slippery slope you have going there!

When I was a child, I read the bible, got taught things from it and went to Sunday school. I also read encyclopaedias and learnt about dinosaurs (I used to know all the names). And basically by the age of seven I had put two and two together and worked it all out. I remember a Eureka moment in the bath when I realised as much as I wanted to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God it didn't make it real.

And then I realised there was no authority in my life I could do what I wanted! I turned to drugs and alcohol to fill the giant gap in my life and killed my brother in a fit of rage. Oh wait... I didn't. Because no one needs God for morality or direction. It comes for within. I take responsibility for my own actions.

Inthebox the clotting cascade is a fantastic example of how evolution can not only explain a complex process but also be used to test it. You test evolution by making predictions based on it and seeing if they are correct this article summarises this.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

It also demonstrates how something that appears irreducibly complex can exist in function parts that are later assemble or built upon. I hope you take the time to read it.

Of course the clotting cascade in itself does not prove evolution (also I did mention before proof is a mathematical concept so defunct for this argument anyway) but the numerous other process that contribute with it are what makes it a scientific fact.

"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence"

Great wording but

Not a SCIENTIFIC experiment that can be reproduced or tested. No

Hypothesis - = evolution and that is it
Methods
Data
Discussion



An exposition on the clotting cascade that is already known, but does not offer
1] what specific mutations led to humanity's.
which gene's were duplicated and when
2] what were the exact natural selection factors?




The best Evolutionary science can do is a retrospective study - those are inherently biased.
Now in the medical field the best trials are prospective randomized double blind. An impossibility with evoultion because the pat answers are always the same phrases,. millions of years, gene mutation, gene duplication etc... when you look backwards / retrospectively it is impossible to control for unknows and confounding factors like oxygen levels or sunlight exposure or temperature etc... - no one can go back and say with absolute certainty that billions of years ago - these were the conditions, these were the subjects and this is what happened.




I am not saying that ID should be taught in public schools, but the inherent flaws and limitations of evolution should be taught. That is true science.

[Capuchin]

"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence"

Great wording but

Not a SCIENTIFIC experiment that can be reproduced or tested. No

Hypothesis - = evolution and that is it
Methods
Data
Discussion



An exposition on the clotting cascade that is already known, but does not offer
1] what specific mutations led to humanity's.
which gene's were duplicated and when
2] what were the exact natural selection factors?




The best Evolutionary science can do is a retrospective study - those are inherently biased.
Now in the medical field the best trials are prospective randomized double blind. An impossibility with evoultion because the pat answers are always the same phrases,.... millions of years, gene mutation, gene duplication etc...when you look backwards / retrospectively it is impossible to control for unknows and confounding factors like oxygen levels or sunlight exposure or temperature etc... - no one can go back and say with absolute certainty that billions of years ago - these were the conditions, these were the subjects and this is what happened.




I am not saying that ID should be taught in public schools, but the inherent flaws and limitations of evolution should be taught. That is true science.

1. put some bacteria in a petri dish (you could put in some selection mechanism, like antibiotics or something)
2. wait ~ 24 hours.
3. observe how the bacteria have evolved.

Voilà. Evolution. Reproducible, testable.

[inthebox]

Okay


1] how did the bacteria get there in the first place?

2] Are not scientists INTELLIGENTLY manipulating reactants and conditions, natural selection if you may, to get results?

3] Bacteria have evolved what? Or is it that they have adapted.
Did that bacteria develop into another bacterial species? Or developed a liver or heart
Or brain? Or should we wait billions of years to see if a fish or dinosaur or
Human "evolves?"

[readnow1978]

Intelligent design points to an Almighty Creator of this whole universe, who is infalliable and whose design is precise and perfect, He also created us , so we must have a purpose, which is to worship our creator. It would be unfair for GOD TO CRAETE US BUT NOT TELL US WHAT DO WITH THIS LIFE and how to live it TO PLEASE hIM.

He has given us an instruction manual, via His chosen people who are role models for us to emulate and these are the prophets, starting from ADAM, through to jesus and the final prophet Muhammed PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL. The final revelation given to the wHole of mankind is the holy Quran, which remains unchange to this very day after 1400 years because ALMIGHTY GOD tells us in the quran that He has revealed it and He will safeguard it hIMSELF

Almighty God says in the quran in chapter 41, verse 53:

Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

[readnow1978]

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” [from the Qur'aan chapter 2, verse 30]

There you have the big bang theory explained by Almnighty God Himself in the quran 1,400 years ago, for which scientists were given the nobel peace prize in the 1970's

[Capuchin]

Okay


1] how did the bacteria get there in the first place?

2] Are not scientists INTELLIGENTLY manipulating reactants and conditions, natural selection if you may, to get results?

3] Bacteria have evolved what? Or is it that they have adapted.
Did that bacteria develop into another bacterial species? or developed a liver or heart
or brain? Or should we wait billions of years to see if a a fish or dinosaur or
human "evolves?"

1] this is not a fault of evolution, evolution describes how life changes from one form to another.

2] Sure, but intelligence is not necessary. Humans throw a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve, or the wind blows a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve. When we study evolution, sure we have to be the intelligence in place, but we simulate things that could happen unintelligently.

3]Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. Adaptation = evolution, except maybe in very intelligent, long lived species which can adapt to a different environment in their own lifetime, why do you think there's a difference?

[inthebox]

Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.




Dang, I want to fly but I have not been able to "evolve" my own wings. Ohh some INTELLIGENT humans have DESIGNED the airplane.



So throwing rocks in pool of water make creatures "evolve" - okay - I'm going out now and throwing rocks in a pool of water - hope I don't have to wait too long.

[Galveston1]

I can remember some years ago a news article where scientists sprayed some chemical soup over warm rocks, and, voilà! After a rather lengthy period there were tiny squirming things in the soup, and the claim was made that they had produced life just like evolution theory said. There was a problem though. The squirmers couldn't reproduce! And it took a lot of intelligence to produce what they got, and God knows how many of our tax dollars! What foolishness!

[Capuchin]

Adaption = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.

You wouldn't call that adaptation?

Dang, I want to fly but I have not been able to "evolve" my own wings. Ohh some INTELLIGENT humans have DESIGNED the airplane.

You don't need wings, though.

So throwing rocks in pool of water make creatures "evolve" - okay - I'm going out now and throwing rocks in a pool of water - hope I don't have to wait too long.

Now you're being silly, do you really not understand what I was trying to say in regard to this?

[Capuchin]

and the claim was made that they had produced life just like evolution theory said

I find that hard to believe, evolution says nothing about producing life from non life.

[inthebox]

1] this is not a fault of evolution, evolution describes how life changes from one form to another.

2] Sure, but intelligence is not necessary. Humans throw a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve, or the wind blows a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve. When we study evolution, sure we have to be the intelligence in place, but we simulate things that could happen unintelligently.

3]Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. Adaptation = evolution, except maybe in very intelligent, long lived species which can adapt to a different environment in their own lifetime, why do you think there's a difference?

Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.

You are correct, I worded this wrong.

It should be :

I thought evolution was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.


I disagree with your second [2] point.

It attributes all of humanity's INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED accomplishments to evolution.

All adaptation is NOT evolution.

For example

1] Phones, today's multifunction cell phone is NOT evolution from the jumbo wall mounted rotary dialed corded version I grew up with.

2] Automotive. Hybrid engine's are an adaptation by humans using their Intelligence to adapt to rising gas prices. Remember diesel engines in the late 70s and early 80s?

3] Christianity - from Roman Catholicism to non-denominational to anti-organized religion.
This adaptation not evolution.

4] Computers - from 256 mhz to terabyte - again INTELLIGENCE - not evolution.

[speedball1]

I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

Of course "Intelligent Design" along with "Creationism" is all about religion. For Intelligent Design you MUST have a designer and for Creationism you MUST have a creator.
It's a no-brainer. As much as the religionists attempt to tapdance away from the subject when you ask them to put a name on the creator or designer it still boils down to being God. And the proponents of this belief wish to teach it in public schools as fact. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!

[Galveston1]

Of course "Intelligent Design" along with "Creationism" is all about religion. For Intelligent Design you MUST have a designer and for Creationism you MUST have a creator.
It's a no-brainer. As much as the religionists attempt to tapdance away from the subject when you ask them to put a name on the creator or designer it still boils down to being God. And the proponents of this belief wish to teach it in public schools as fact. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!

Your belief in evolution is just as much a religion as is mine, and I object to MY TAX DOLLARS being spent to teach it exclusively in the classroom. Evolutionists keep saying that their assumptions can be duplicated or shown in the lab, which is nonsense. Some aspects of the assumptions may be shown, but the overall theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and is swallowed without any doubts by gullible people. Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?

[Wondergirl]

Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?

The "how" is the business of science, which is taught in public schools.

The "why" is the business of religion, which is NOT taught in public schools.