Originally posted by aardvarkhomeHmm, yes that's true - never thought about that. my thinking was more along the lines of a court in Yorkshire court in Lancashire type thing. England and Scotland are technically different countries, with different laws...
Yes we would. Scottish courts would not set precedent in England and Wales (and vica versa)
Originally posted by scottishinnzFor instance, the various 'spokespeople' who clamor to the talk shows every time the topic is thrust into the limelight, clucking their tongues and condescendingly dismissing the naysayers.
"I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself."
What machinery? The theory of evolution does not need belief - merely people who understand statistics and probability. It becomes irrefutable at that point....
The various 'science' magazines which are propoganda posts by name-brand scientists, themselves many years removed from the lab or the proving grounds, unpublished in anything peer-reviewed, merely kept like animals at a zoo.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd how exactly can anyone who is not a theist express suport for the physical world being designed, or created?
Good point. I guess that leaves just the agnostics and the unaffiliated. Nonetheless, to ascertain truth, it is not necessary to cling to pre-suppositions. This applies to both sides of the argument. Those vocal so-called guardians of the scientific community (and science itself, to hear them) are becoming increasingly fervent in their protection of all they hold dear, dismissing out of hand anything remotely close to dissension as nonsense, unworthy of further review (re: Stephen Jay Gould and his work on punctuated equilibria).
Using majority as a barometer, how is it that the majority of people dismiss what the "majority of the scientific community" hails as truth? The theory of evolution, now almost 150 years from its introduction, has been bandied about, taught in public schools, indoctrinated at the university level, and yet is still not accepted by the public at large.
Of course, one could make the argument that the public at large is just plain stupid. Or, perhaps the self-evidential nature of the theory is less than compelling. This would necessitate the secret knowledge factor rearing its ugly head again, although this time, the secret decoder ring is in the hands of the scientist/priest.
Most scientists believe that science is important for our civilization and that the more people who understand it the better off we all are.
Them scientists sure are a pure lot, aren't they?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPart one;
[b]And how exactly can anyone who is not a theist express suport for the physical world being designed, or created?
Good point. I guess that leaves just the agnostics and the unaffiliated. Nonetheless, to ascertain truth, it is not necessary to cling to pre-suppositions. This applies to both sides of the argument. Those vocal so-called guardians ...[text shortened]... rstand it the better off we all are.
[/b]
Them scientists sure are a pure lot, aren't they?[/b]
This is not necessarily true. There recently was a creationist paper published in the PNAS (Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences). Now the editors could have chucked it out out of hand with no justification - that's their perogative. But they didn't, because they coul find nothing technically wrong with the paper. Scientists cannot be said to not have an open mind - for material with evidence that is.
Some scientists get hacked off with repeating their points and their analysis time and time again, as frequently happens when speaking to ferverent creationists. It's understandable when some people don't want to listen or understand.
It is true that the majority of biologist recognise the theory of evolution as the truth. Perhaps this is not true of the general community, but hopefully this trend is slowly changing. When my parents were at high school they would not have been taught the theory, but I was. They would have been taught alot more about religion and creationism than I was. Hopefully, when I have children one day, the theory will be much more understood then than it is now. I don't think that the general population are stupid, but I think that public education on this topic is not fantastic yet. Like most theories, evolutionary biology is pretty mathematical, and to fully understand evolutionary theory a sound knowledge of maths is very useful.
Comment two; Scientists are a pure lot.
Well, we certainly don't do it for the money! I could do alot of other things and get paid more, but I love my job, and I want the things that I learn and deduce throughout my career to be disseminated as widely as possible. What other motive could we possibly have for promoting our ideas? I'm not going to make any more money or have any more power!
Originally posted by telerionSo you wished you would've never learned ID in school?
Yes, you have (unless by "met" you mean face-to-face).
To me ID is the best possible solution of the existence of life with God as a factor, and verifying some of its evidence with history, (like the Flood) and uses "odds" as a factor.
To me The Theory of Macro Evolution is the best passable explanation if you take out God as a factor, and IMO throwing "odds" out of the picture
I'm not sure why anyone would not want to learn both, even if the only reason is to downgrade one or another
That's like Republicans controlling the media, or the Democrats, if you have a balance they will help keep the other straight, If one party takes complete control, then it will be pretty much biased news.
I gained valuable experience, from learning both ID and evolution, and even though its been like 10 years since I took it, It still gives me a more complete picture, instead of just one side.
So my question is: You really wished you would've never took ID courses? if so, then you would be the first person I met, who is against ID in school who actually took ID courses.
I don't necessary think it should be a required class, more of an option for students who wants to learn about the evidence of it, and the evidence of the inpossablilty of say: DNA, and macro evolution etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease provide evidence that the majority of people dismiss evolutionary theory. It took me less than 30 seconds to find a National Geographic arcticle sourcing a Gallup poll which stated that 45% of Americans belive that evolution played no role in shaping humans (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html). Unless you are practicing some kind of "Intelligent Maths", that doesn't seem like a majority, even in the god-fearing US of A. I shall look into the figures for other developed countries (some sources on quick inspection put the % who belive in evolution at >80% in the UK and >95% in Japan, but I shall see if this is even remotely trustworthy)
Using majority as a barometer, how is it that the majority of people dismiss what the "majority of the scientific community" hails as truth?
Them scientists sure are a pre lot, aren't they?
Originally posted by flyUnityAnd yet again I ask the question. please define macro / micro evolution and when you come to the term 'kind' please tell me what it means.
So you wished you would've never learned ID in school?
I don't necessary think it should be a required class, more of an option for students who wants to learn about the evidence of it, and the evidence of the inpossablilty of say: DNA, and macro evolution etc.
Originally posted by flyUnityWell Fly,
So you wished you would've never learned ID in school?
To me ID is the best possible solution of the existence of life with God as a factor, and verifying some of its evidence with history, (like the Flood) and uses "odds" as a factor.
To me The Theory of Macro Evolution is the best passable explanation if you take out God as a factor, and IMO thro ...[text shortened]... the evidence of it, and the evidence of the inpossablilty of say: DNA, and macro evolution etc.
I'm afraid for you that DNA is quite proven, and not at all 'inpossible' as you state!
Secondly, you didn't note it except indirectly, progressive evolution. Most of your type state that mutations can only destroy genes and not create new abilities in an organism. Not true.
Take, for example, MRSA. MRSA is a variety of Staphlococcus aereus that is resistant to nearly all the antibiotics currently available to us. Staph a. never used to be resistant to any drugs before we found out about penecillin. As we started using (and abusing) penecillin, a bacterium developed resistance to that antibiotic - progressive evolution. It has continued to develop resistances to most other antibiotics.
Now you have two options here, a) God did it. By Magic. Or b) out of the billions of bacteria that exist, one has a mutation that allows it to survive even when treated with antibiotics. This microbe can survive and thrive in environments where it's counterparts cannot. Differential death, selects for the new variety over the old. Same old evolution. Now, you can't say that the evolution of the new genes was by a destructive mutation for the bacteria - it was very useful to the bacteria, and you can't say it's only microevolution, because you can't have microevolution and destructive mutation only.
Feel free to worm and wriggle now, but fail to actually explain anything.
Originally posted by scottishinnzStaph has adapted, I know that Cells can adapt, however there is not one case where a living cell became more complicated, just adaptive, This is called micro evolution,
Well Fly,
I'm afraid for you that DNA is quite proven, and not at all 'inpossible' as you state!
Secondly, you didn't note it except indirectly, progressive evolution. Most of your type state that mutations can only destroy genes and not create new abilities in an organism. Not true.
Take, for example, MRSA. MRSA is a variety of Staphl ...[text shortened]... tive mutation only.
Feel free to worm and wriggle now, but fail to actually explain anything.
Micro evolution means it adapts, Macro evolution means it gets more complicated, yes, the case you posted IS Micro Evolution.
As far as DNA, maybe you should look up at how DNA came into place, you might learn somthing :0
Originally posted by scottishinnzStaph has adapted, I know that Cells can adapt, however there is not one case where a living cell became more complicated, just adaptive, This is called micro evolution,
Well Fly,
I'm afraid for you that DNA is quite proven, and not at all 'inpossible' as you state!
Secondly, you didn't note it except indirectly, progressive evolution. Most of your type state that mutations can only destroy genes and not create new abilities in an organism. Not true.
Take, for example, MRSA. MRSA is a variety of Staphl ...[text shortened]... tive mutation only.
Feel free to worm and wriggle now, but fail to actually explain anything.
Micro evolution means it adapts, Macro evolution means it gets more complicated, yes, the case you posted IS Micro Evolution.
As far as DNA, maybe you should look up at how DNA came into place, you might learn somthing :0
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIts been a while since I studied this stuff, but in ID classes I leaned at different stuff, like how gravity affect time, different theorys on how come we see starlight thats millions of light years away, and how gravity affects the speed of light etc.
What do you mean by this? What questions does ID answer, and in what way? What insight does it give?
Believe me, Im not an expert in this stuff, but it has helped me see both pictures, and even if you do think that ID is way goofy, I dont see why you wouldnt want to learn about somthing that a big percent of the world believes in. Are you afraid that children will learn somthing that may affect their evolution beliefs?
Originally posted by flyUnityA bacteria cannot 'adapt' to an antibiotic. OMG have you no idea? It can't 'get used to it'. Many antibiotics act by destabilising the cell wall or distrupting biochemical pathways - these organisms have to change to survive. In some cases they change their biochem to break down the antibiotics, something they were unable to do before. They need new genes to do this. How do I know? Well, I've done bacterial transformations many times, both as an undergraduate student myself and as a postgraduate demonstrator. It requires new DNA that the bacteria don't have. All populations have natural variation, and some have genes that other don't; the mathematics of probability take care of the rest.
Staph has adapted, I know that Cells can adapt, however there is not one case where a living cell became more complicated, just adaptive, This is called micro evolution,
Micro evolution means it adapts, Macro evolution means it gets more complicated, yes, the case you posted IS Micro Evolution.
As far as DNA, maybe you should look up at how DNA came into place, you might learn somthing :0
As for the looking up of how DNA came in to place - for fecks sake, I'm a professional biologist I already know. It evolved from short sections of (the most likely precursor) RNA.