Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Jollybear]

But they didn't. Wonder why?

If i remember correctly, i think the video said they wer not permitted to repeal. But my memory may be cloudy on that.

Who is he making his case to?

Hes trying to make his case to the most relavent people he possibly can. I know he appeared on the news and debate platforms debating with naturalists who are PHD scientists.

Everyone else, ill reply to your posts soon. I got a mountain of backlog of posts, its hard to keep up.

 

[Jollybear]

1. Newton did believe in God, a creator, he also believed in alchemy. Newton was not a biologist, he was a mathematician and scientist. He also lived and died over one hundred years before Darwin published his books that explained how life evolved on earth.

Oh so you think because newton died before darwin he would not believe in God if he died after darwin? I dont think thats feasable to believe at all due to the fact there wer atheists even in newtons day.

I think newton if alive today would support stephen myers ID movement.

2. The judge was a Bush appointed judge with good conservative credentials. The case collapsed when the ID side realised that their case was built on lies and one by one pulled out and refused to give evidence.

No, evidence was given and evidence is given still today.

Some court judgements are stupid rullings, look at all the innocents that go to jail as an example.

The evidence presented was truly shown up for what it was ...unscientific rubbish.

Ya, you can barry your head in the sand if you want.

3. It was proven in the drafts of the book "Of Pandas and People" that the ID side were being creative by changing the name. Needless to say, they initially denied this.

The name is samantics. Created, designed, engineered, architecture, it dont matter. What matters is there evidence? Yes. Constantly nitpicking over samantics and motives does not give respect to ID scientists that do real science. And, frankly, thats wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it's not.


I didn't say that. The evidence shows intelligence is unnecessary to the development. It makes no claims about it's involvement.

So if DNA was developed without intelligence, how then can intelligence be involved?

How can DNA, a code of instructions originate from non intelligent forces and chemicals?

Name any?

Richard dawkins and lawrence krauss. Probably lots more too. But im aware of those two.

You can choose to remain ignorant all you like. Getting snbarky at me for trying to give you correct information isn't going to make you right.

If im ignorent, go ahead and educate me. Lets get it on.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it is not. For example, intelligence isn't *necessary* to split a rock. But it is possible for an intelligence to split a rock. Do you see the difference?

Ya, but DNA is not a rock, its a code of information.

So, if we see a rock that was split apart, we cannot say one way or the other whether an intelligence did the splitting. If intelligence *were* necessary, we would be able to make the inference that an intelligence did it. If intelligence was shown to not be able to split the rock, we could *infer* that no intelligence did it.

Ya and DNA is not a rock.

But, our current amount of information is that intelligence isn't *required* for DNA. If you want to claim that some DNA is the result of intelligence, you need to do more work.

So how does the current info tell us that intelligence is not "required" to originate DNA?

 

[Jollybear]

Are you totally unaware of what you just wrote?

No, not aware at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The data for design is overwhelming.

Where?

 

[Jollybear]

Where?

You

 

[Jose Fly]

And actually, "teaching the problems with evolution" is the only way they have of making a case for creationism---relying on a few verses in the Bible is hardly going to do it. So they posit the ridiculous presupposition that if evolution is wrong then, by default, creationism has to be right..

Yep, it's pretty much all they have left. Now the primary battle is to get schools to not be afraid to teach evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, it's pretty much all they have left. Now the primary battle is to get schools to not be afraid to teach evolution.

And to make sure that teachers have at least a minimal understanding of the subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

If i remember correctly, i think the video said they wer not permitted to repeal. But my memory may be cloudy on that.

But there was/is nothing preventing the ID creationists from simply going to another school district and trying again. Yet they didn't, and even now the Discovery Institute (the ID creationist advocacy group) says they don't support teaching ID creationism in schools. That's pretty significant, don't you think?

Hes trying to make his case to the most relavent people he possibly can. I know he appeared on the news and debate platforms debating with naturalists who are PHD scientists.

Why isn't he making his case to the scientific community via publishing articles in scientific journals? If the ultimate goal is to get ID creationism in schools, you'd think his most effective strategy would be to convince the scientific community, which would mean they would start teaching it in universities, which would mean incoming students would need to be versed in it, which would mean getting it in public schools would be a piece of cake.

 

[Jose Fly]

And to make sure that teachers have at least a minimal understanding of the subject.

Yup, that goes hand in hand with "don't be afraid to teach it".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup, that goes hand in hand with "don't be afraid to teach it".

I am at times dismayed at the low requirements for teaching in U.S. public schools. I met a man going to college to be a teacher of physics in high school. I asked him how he was dealing with the calculus and he told me none was needed for his certificate! Now one may be able to understand how some of the formulas for physics were derived without calculus, but one cannot understand how they are related to each other without it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So if DNA was developed without intelligence, how then can intelligence be involved?

Try reading what I actually said, or this is going to take a real long time. No one said DNA developed without intelligence, what is said (and supported by evidence) is that intelligence is UNNECESSARY for the development of DNA. Subtle yet significant difference.

How can DNA, a code of instructions originate from non intelligent forces and chemicals?

All it takes is an imperfect replicator, + time + energy source. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about "instructions" in nature. Crystal growth follows "instructions", as does planetary formation, weather systems and orbital systems.

Richard dawkins and lawrence krauss. Probably lots more too. But im aware of those two.

Got a quote?

If im ignorent, go ahead and educate me. Lets get it on.

I'll do my best, as long as you remain respectful and open.

 

[shmogie]

ID can not legitimately even be called theory.

How about abiogenisis ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about abiogenisis ?

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That means that many of the questions and problems of abiogenesis have been answered but there is no overarching single explanation.

There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis, there is no evidence for the various creation myths.

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That means that many of the questions and problems of abiogenesis have been answered but there is no overarching single explanation.

There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis, there is no evidence for the various creation myths.

I'm afraid the acceptance of abiogenesis as fact resides in science's ability to demonstrate it. Science will have to actually produce life from non-life. But that's how it should be.

.​

 

[Jollybear]

Try reading what I actually said, or this is going to take a real long time. No one said DNA developed without intelligence, what is said (and supported by evidence) is that intelligence is UNNECESSARY for the development of DNA. Subtle yet significant difference.All it takes is an imperfect replicator, + time + energy source.

So a imperfect replicator+time+energy is the evidence for DNA code? Is this proven or is this evidence, or is this evidence+inference?

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about "instructions" in nature.

Why is instructions in nature not noteworthy? All our experience tells us instructions come from intelligence.

Crystal growth follows "instructions", as does planetary formation, weather systems and orbital systems.

How are those things a code of information?

Got a quote?

Stephen hawking said it too apparently, i just found that out now. Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing'

Richard Dawkins Quotes

I'll do my best, as long as you remain respectful and open.

Sounds like a deal.

 

[Jollybear]

But there was/is nothing preventing the ID creationists from simply going to another school district and trying again. Yet they didn't, and even now the Discovery Institute (the ID creationist advocacy group) says they don't support teaching ID creationism in schools. That's pretty significant, don't you think?

Im certainly not aware of that. From speaches ive heard stephen make they want the controversy taught. Where did you hear the oposite?

Why isn't he making his case to the scientific community via publishing articles in scientific journals?

He did do this. But due to the strong bias, he can only acheive so much.

If the ultimate goal is to get ID creationism in schools, you'd think his most effective strategy would be to convince the scientific community, which would mean they would start teaching it in universities, which would mean incoming students would need to be versed in it, which would mean getting it in public schools would be a piece of cake.

Stephen in his speaches addressed this question. He said all great ideas in the past went through the fire of resistence before being accepted.

 

[gnostic]

Nope. naturalists don't make any claim about DNA coming from intelligence or not, they just study how it has changed through time. Science currently claims that intelligence is unnecessary for the development of DNA, and the actual extant evidence supports the claim, but no scientist makes any claim about intelligence definitively being involved or not.

Nor do naturtalists (or any other scientist) "infer the universe either came from nothing by chance and time or it was always existent"

If you're so unfamiliar with what science actually claims about these matters, it seems kind of silly to try to argue against them.

That’s what I don’t understand about creationists.

They argue about something that they don’t understand.

They really should learn at least the basics of what they want to argue against.

 

[gnostic]

Not only is it a ligitamate theory, its a better one then the alternatives. The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.

You are kidding, right?

The Intelligent Design is the propaganda of the Discovery Institute, which found the modern Intelligent Design.

And the Discovery Institute were founded by 2 lawyers/politicians and political journalists:

1. Bruce Chapman (journalist, politician)
   
2. George Gilder (political journalist, economist)

Neither of these guys have any qualification in science (not life science, eg biology, and not earth science or astronomy).

Likewise, Phillip E. Johnson, who was senior member of Discovery Institute, was a law professor, but his qualification was a bachelor in English literature. He started Intelligent Design within Discovery Institute, but like the DI's founders, he has no background in science, whatsoever.

Johnson was also the main author of the Discovery Institute's manifesto or mission statements, known as the Wedge Strategy or the Wedge Document.

It list out their anti-evolution movement have everything to do with using propaganda, lawyers and politicians to promote ID to be taught in schools' science classrooms, using media, books, journals and applying legal and political pressures upon school boards to have the schools teach creationism in science. But ID is creationism, not science.

So the basis of Intelligent Design come from 3 senior members with no qualifications in biology.

You talk of politics, Jollybear, but you seemed to don’t know that the Discovery Institute by men involved in politics.