 |
Orlando Sentinel – Academic freedom, evolution and Ben Stein’s Expelled movie –the Florida House may consider them all — These guys keep trying different tweaks. This one is the next one in the bag of tricks. These guys will be making a mistake if they push this idea too far. There are weirder topics lurking that could push for more exposure under an academic freedom umbrella that is too wide open.
A local state lawmaker who is pushing Florida to adopt an “academic freedom” law — one that would protect teachers who are critical of evolution — has invited members of the Florida House to a private screening of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The controversial documentary, staring Ben Stein, is supported by the Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design and has been pushing for academic freedom laws to protect those who share its views.
The invitation to see Expelled on Wednesday was sent to all members of the House by Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, according to his legislative aide.
 |
#60. /i Humor for the day: I always like to imagine what the reaction would be if I had the balls to walk into a Christian Science Reading Room and ask to be directed to the Christian Science Laboratory. I could explain that I wanted to be an impartial observer and see how they perform their tests. /-i
They would probably show you to the bathroom.
“Oh! I thought you meant the Christian Science Lavatory!”
#59 No question who has the better chance. BTW, I haven’t followed this area for quite a while. Have you heard of any breakthroughs?
#49
> What if there is something more
> than science? What if there is
> something above science?
That is certainly a worthy discussion topic, but not for a science class. Science only deals in the world that is observable. It is very possible for something that is not observable to exist however such discussions are entirely outside the scope of science.
> I’m unaware of any direct
> proofs of Gravity, yet I accept
> it, I believe it, I can see its effects.
It is not necessary to “know” a phenomena to devise a scientific theory that predicts it effect. This is the case for gravity. We have some ideas about what it could be such as Einstein’s postulation that it is bending in space-time. Regardless, the theories of gravity predict its effects with sufficient accuracy and that is what makes them scientific. That is a key component of scientific theories: they provide predictive power. If we take two animals of the same species and put them in very different environments, the theories of evolution state that they will diverge. With sufficient time, they diverge to the point of losing their ability to mate with each other. The exact mechanisms, speed, catalysts and such that cause this to happen are widely debated by scientists but whether it will occur is not debated.
not sure who brought the “life in test tubes” theme up, but it shows the basic underlying theme. If you claim that the scientific theory of the development of life is unproven because it has not been replicated in a lab, you show a phenomenal lack of understanding probability.
Life has shown up on earth rather early in it’s development, I think about 500 million years after the earth itself.
That’s about four billion (or 4000 million) years ago.
Do you have any idea of what fraction of 500 million years researchers actually have had to re-create life in test tubes? It’s actually pretty simple maths: 1/5000000th. And that’s only the time component. When you then look at the amount of available matter in labs and in “the real thing” (that is, the earth as a whole) you’re talking maybe something in the range of 1E-20 (assuming that about 10 tons of material have been used in those 100 years in test tubes. Give or take one order of magnitude). multiply those, and you’ve got odds of about 1E-26. Let me put that in words: the chance of having found life in a lab in the last 100 years is 1/100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 times smaller than the chance that life has emerged once in those first 500 million years on the early earth. That’s just statistics. Do you get a glimpse of why this argument “it hasn’t been proven” just reflects your own lack of scientific understanding?
pj
#63 – patrick,
No. I haven’t. Mostly, this is something that the god-of-the-gaps people like to point to. When/if scientists succeed at this it will be huge news. You won’t miss it.
With so many of the other gaps that have been pointed to as “proof that god must exist” now closed, the whole idea of looking at these things is merely amusing to me.
Even some theologians are now saying that we shouldn’t look to god of the gaps because it creates an ever shrinking god as the gaps are closed.
Bobbo,
The problem is that creationists can’t decouple in their minds creation from evolution. All evolution attempts to explain is the migration of creatures from one species to another (or multiple species) it does not claim to know where the first life came from. Many who support evolution would concede that the “big Bang” could be of divine origin, and the creation of a universe that is not only supportive but inducive to life is the real miracle. THe mechanism of evolution is actually pretty pedestrian in that light.
However, most (if not all) creationists believe in the literal bible, which is where the disconnect occcurs. In it God can’t simply create the universe he (or she) must also micromanage the entire collection of animals on it as well. (Wouldn’t that mean that causing animals to go extinct is a mortal sin?)
Unfortunately there will probably never be a rational agreement in that the origin of life is a mystery but the mechanics of how that life became us is evolution.
#66 Thanks. It’s only a matter of time.
I hadn’t heard of the “god-of-the-gaps” thing but I get the gist of it.
#65 How often does “chance” create a diamond out of carbon and, how long does it take? How often does man create one and how long does it take?
Monkeys pounding on typewriters vs. an artist composing.
Think before you post.
#68, patrick
so what you’re saying is that the process of creating life in a test tube is well understood, but it just won’t work?
Utter nonsense. All we *can* attempt to do is to recreate an environment where we think the likelyhood is higher than normal and then wait.
If we knew how to create life, we could create it just as we can create diamonds. There was a time when we could not create artificial diamonds because the process was not fully understood. Would you have claimed that only god could make diamonds then? And would you have dropped your god after we’ve learned the technique?
Understand what you’re talking about before you tell others to think.
pj
#69 “the chance of having found life in a lab”
Analyze what you wrote and flaw of your argument will become apparent.
#46 – Which probably is the reason why so many Philosophy PhDs flip burgers at Wendys.
I just don’t think that’s true. I’ve eaten at many Wendy’s restaurants, and no one there appears to have majored in philosophy.
#70–patrick==whats your theory for how life got started on this planet?
More to the point–assuming you agree that that the earth was formed by space dust swirling together around our sun about 4.5 Billion years ago and was a molten blob of iron/silica to begin with and slowly cooled===where else did life come from except some as yet unknown chemical process–absent seeding from passing comets and such?
#72 – As far as life starting, I don’t know. Consider, we don’t really know what “life” is at this point. We see its effects only.
Evolution of that life and how that works is pretty clear. I’d have to go with a chemical process as a starting point. Being able to prove that theory could be a major problem and I’m willing to be wrong about it.
One of the interesting points about the god-of-the-gaps mentality that loves to point out anything science doesn’t yet know and then claim that it’s god is that lack of knowledge about something does not indicate the existence of a higher power.
Even if we disprove evolution, e.g. find a pre-cambrian rabbit or some shit though actually it would take more than that, it still doesn’t mean god did it. It would just mean we’d need a new explanation.
Current science and god are not the only choices. New theories can be formed in light of new data. Further, an observable fact, such as life on this planet, does not need an explanation. It simply is.
We try to come up with a theory to explain it because we like to know the story. But, the fact is true, even if we don’t know the why.
Whether gravity works by an exchange of gravitons or by warping space or whether some sort of duality similar to light’s wave/particle duality, turns out to be the case, or even whether the answer is none of the above, gravity still works.
Even if we did not have the theory of natural selection to explain how species change, we would still have the observable fact that they do. Even if scientists fail to ever create life in a test tube, it is not evidence of god.
If you want to search for evidence of god, and really take things scientifically, negatives won’t cut it. One would have to search for real evidence of a creature that can suspend the laws of physics, preferably on request.
BTW, people have actually tried this:
http://tinyurl.com/69r8t
http://tinyurl.com/2vdfvr
#74 I don’t think anyone is arguing that life exists. They argue with the hypothesis (not a theory like evolution) of how it came to be.
Gravity isn’t a good comparison, based on the scientific method.
Good articles by the way. I read the 1st one when it came out.
#75 – patrick,
I guess I did a bad job making my point. The point is that the fact that life exists, even if science can’t explain it, is not evidence that god exists.
When looking for evidence of god, look for positives, not negatives. That science can’t explain [blah] does not mean that god made [blah].
If science ends up with a wrong theory of [blah], such as alchemy or phlogiston chemistry, it will be replaced with another scientific theory. It does not imply existence of god.
God-of-the-gaps is based on the assumption that if science can’t explain [blah] then it is the realm of god. This is silly in the extreme.
#76 I get you. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I am not looking at it for evidence of a god. I’m just genuinely interested in how life came to exist.
#77 – patrick,
That is a very interesting question. Have you entered a career in biology? If not, I strongly suggest that you do. Practicing science will be the most likely way to get the answers to your questions.
actually, before trying to find out how life came to exist, how about a good definition of “life”.
Is life what biology usually defines? An organism that has a metabolism and does replicate in some way shape or form? That does clearly classify virusses as non-living.
But somehow, we know that’s not true.
So, before going to the bottom of the barrel, understanding the concept you’re searching for would help.
pj
#78 To late for that. I went the comp eng route. Too old to start over…
#79 My point being the effects of having the quality we call “life” are somewhat understood. Whether or not something will “come to life” if we replicate an organism down to the molecular level is the question. If it will, great. If not, that would be very interesting.
#80: it’s never too late to start to understand.
As for life: I’d say go ahead and read the selfish gene. It’s got some very interesting insights into what it is we call life.
The theory is that the elements of life are not species, not specimen, not cells, not the gene pool, not a single genome but a single gene. This single gene “wants” to replicate, “strives” to maximize it’s abundance in the gene pool. Everything from there on is opportunism. Genes cooperating with other genes, genes wrapping themselves in a membrane, forming the first procariotic cell. Then go ahead and read the extended phenotype and think about how much of the DNA inside of you is really “your” DNA. Specifically read the story about the crown gall that’s described there and tell me if the DNA snippet causing it is already “life”.
We tend to glorify “life”, tend to give it some amazing property, something “divine” (pardon the word). Maybe life is nothing more than perpetual replication of information? Maybe there are many many shades of grey between life and non-life.
Actually, that’s my personal view on life. There’s a shallow gradient towards life. At the lowest level may be crystals that are actually able to “transfer information” – that is to say to make atoms arrange along the exact same structure. In this case, “genotype” and phenotype are identical. The structure itself is the information. That’s true for pure RNA/DNA as well, however once the whole enzymes business kickes in, there is a phenotype that’s larger than the genotype.
If you want to wonder about something, here’s my tip: take a good look at miosis and try to explain why there are no genes that succeed in corrupting the process to their advantage. That has always been the biggest wonder of life for me.
pj
#81 – Thanks a lot.
#71, OFTLO,
I’ve eaten at many Wendy’s restaurants, and no one there appears to have majored in philosophy.
See how useful those Philosophy PhDs are. Usually they are burnt because they need to discuss whether “if a burger is flipped and there is no one to watch it will it cook”?
#79 & 81 – pjakobs,
You do raise a very good point that anyone attempting to “create life in a test tube” must keep in mind, as well as anyone merely very interested in the outcome.
The very simplest replicator meets the definition for this purpose. Once we have replication, natural selection can operate to improve replication. If RNA or something simpler isn’t very good at it but does replicate, then selection can work towards simple strands of DNA.
This simplest possible replicator is what we’re after.
There are many hypotheses about how they came to be, one of the less favored hypotheses even has clay acting as a sort of a molecule organizer that builds longer and longer strands until RNA appears. This hypothesis has the advantage of starting with less random occurrences.
Another hypothesis has life starting at the volcanic vents in the sea floor. There’s water, constant energy, and probably greater recombination of elements. Extremophiles live there today.
Regardless of which hypothesis you like, any of these offer a more plausible start to life than “God did it.”
The big problem with the “God did it” hypothesis is that it fails to even be a hypothesis. It logically simply falls apart, or as I more commonly like to say, flies up it’s own asshole in endless recursion. The assumption of a prime mover or creator implies, of necessity, that there must be a creator creator and a creator creator creator. It’s turtles all the way down.
http://tinyurl.com/nqtv5
#81–pj==I’d like to understand your insight of meiosis, but I can’t quite get it. I’m sure there are division errors made making some haploids not fertile and what not==so how does “advantage” not take place?
Or–just explain it with different words?
Hey Friends,
I know that a lot of people think that religion is a big joke. The truth is that until we find forgiveness of our sins in Jesus Christ we have no hope. When God created man he gave us a choice to willingly obey him. However Adam turned from God and disobeyed his command. As a result our fellowship with God was destroyed and our hearts were darkened. The Bible makes it very clear. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans, 3. 23). But there is great news.
Thankfully for Gods great mercy and love he sent his one and only son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins. The truth is Jesus would rather die on the cross then ever live with out you and that if you were the only one on earth he still would have died for you. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. When you put your trust in God and ask him for forgiveness the old will pass and become new. 2Corinthians 5:17,”Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” See, that’s what it means to be born again. Before you put your trust in Jesus his word is foolishness to us. “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God”. This is so true! In my life before I became a Christian I never understood the bible or even cared anything about it. But you see once you repent of your sins you are made righteous in Gods eyes through Jesus Christ. He restores the fellowship with God that sin once separated. No matter how good of a person you are or how many good deeds you do nothing can pay for your sins. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot stand in front of a holy infinite God! “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do ” (Eph. 2:8,9).
The whole issue of creationism vs evolution isn’t about the facts. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same facts. Its are starting points that make the difference. Until Jesus restores your fellowship with God it is impossible for your to acknowledge God or understand him. Friends Jesus Christ loves you. I know that may sound weird but its true. Gods love for you is never changing. No matter how many times you sin or even do good his love never changes. Here are a couple of verses from Gods word the Bible.
We were dead in our sins as unbelievers, ” As for you [believers], you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins [before you became believers], in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air [Satan], the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. . . .We were by nature objects of [God’s] wrath. But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in Mercy, MADE US ALIVE with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved ” (Ephesians 2:1-5).
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.
Colossians, 1. 16
Websites:
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/abounding_grace/
Gods Word Vs Mans Opinion
Hey, here is an interesting article…
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/gods-word-vs-opinion
There will be harmony only when religion is understood for the fairytale psychological/sociological phenomenom it is and science is not used as a trashbin for everything yet to be agreed on.