correction:

"im no chicken little. evolutionary theory is well supported by science; bringing it into question would make science as a whole vulnerable to non science."

"im no chicken little. evolutionary theory is well supported by science; successfully bringing it into question without employing the scientific method, would make science as a whole vulnerable to non science." poorly worded, i know (thanks for the pm, usgrant). my point is the same: if some insist on broadening science so that religion can be included, evolutionary theory will not be the only thing that suffers.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

I now yield the balance of my time back to the chair.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

usgrant- I found some links for you, the first is a general evolution, very broad, and might not serve much purpose:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_cente...e_summary.html

I think raytri went over most of the basics in the other thread, but it is important to differentiate chemical evolution, and biological evolution. (and mutations from hereditary traits, more speciation involves genes/traits than actual mutations)

Here is one I found more credible on chem. evolution -
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/...Evolution.html

Look up Stanley Miller's experiments/RNA hypothesis for further information on the subject.

Note the RNA hypothesis is only a theory, because it is very hard to synthesize ribose (main sugar in RNA) from compounds which are thought to have existed in the early atmosphere.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

In my estimation, the farther back I look, the leap of faith it takes to presume that chem evo transitions itself into a bio-chemical evo which then transitions itself into bio-mechanical evo. on a magnitude, is equal, if not greater, than a Christian's presumption of a creator. But I will read your links as a (non-chemist) and try and grasp what is being said.

Again, thank you for your post.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

This isn't an issue, as there aren't any science teachers telling kids God doesn't exist. If I did a study on surviving in a whales stomach, and proved conclusively that it was impossible, would that disprove the existance of God? No. And neither does teaching evolution.

No one is really arguing for this, its a non issue.

As a liberal elitest, I think most Americans are stupid. Do you really want the lady in the check out line at the grocery store, who is arguing over a 3 cent difference in price on STAR magazine, to teach her children Calculus or John Locke?

I think it is fact. There are a few little gaps here and there, but as the field improves the gaps will go away. This is the case in ALL sciences. Its like super massive black holes. At first people predicted they were rare or non existant, now they have discovered that one resides at the center of every galaxy.




Ahhh, The crux of the ID argument. I think it was William Dembski who first brought this up.
This has two flaws.
1) At the time he published his work on the subject, there were some gaps in understanding. This gaps will eventually be explained, and there are already several hypothesis. For example that the parts were developed in other areas and had other function, but were co-opted into the new function.
2) Dembski and all other ID people commit the ultimate scientific sin that has plagued religious people since the beginning.
"I can't explain this - therefore God"
Flat Earth, the Sun, the Stars, all fell into this catagory as well.
Where ever our understanding of science ends, there is a religious person saying "HAHAH, Therefore GOD!!" But eventually the science comes up with an explanation. "Its not a sun god driving a chariot..."

To date the religious people have a .000 batting average.

I see no logical reason to hold to a religious doctrine that has been proven wrong time and time again.

More importantly, our young budding scientists in the High School Classroom, should not be learning the mantra of "I can't explain this, therefor GOD." That is not science.

ID is not science, it is only a ruse. They utilize science up to the limits of our scientific understanding, then trash it in favor of the "old ways" of explaining events.


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Irreducible Complexity is certainly based on science. To say that it shouldn't be discussed because science will someday explain it away is ridiculous. Discussing unknowns is a major part of science. We're talking about high school kids here. They're not idiots. "Protecting" them from religion is no different than the old days of trying to "protect" then from the science of evolution. Put it all on the table and fire up their curiosity. I'm not interested in teaching kids what to think. Fire up their synapses and by teaching them how to think. Talk about panspermia and abiogenesis and intelligent design theories. What are y'all afraid of?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

irreducible complexity is not based on science - science doesnt shrug its shoulders and say this cant be explained (guessing that god just did it isnt a scientific explanation). science isnt just a collection of random ideas that people present so everyone with distinct views can party together. what is presented in science classrooms is fact and theory to explain fact; theory is based on extensive testing that has yielded positive results. i believe the main example id proponents use is the flagellum, but that has already been proven incorrect.

if they want to add another subject to study in schools (non science), they should work toward that. changing the definition of science so they can fit in adam n eve, astrology (whats your sign?) and magic isnt helpful to anyone trying to learn about science - real science.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

How do you know that an object that is at rest will remain at rest until acted on by another force?

Is this science? Or is this not science? (I will give you all several minutes to contemplate this.)

Science, because it can be reproduced in a lab? If that was your answer, then you are correct, and you advance to the next round.

If I have this text string, ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCP and i change any one of those letters in that string, in any way, and the subject is no longer viable. How could any mutation, be more successful? If I add a sequence, or change a sequence, the subject dies. On first mutation, the whole line of succession collapses. Even if I had 1,000,000,000,000 copies of ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCP and due to the environment, a mutation occurs to change the string to ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCC. That copy dies before it can reproduce. Its a genetic dead end. With very small organisms, if you stop any one component from working the way it should, the organism dies. When you start with only one, and they reproduce into a trillion, then you must factor in food sources and waste material. Was the primordial ooze a whole eco system ready-made for all of the self destructive behavior of consuming organisms? When that first single celled organism evolved, did it have a gene sequence that could immediately benefit from the world around it? How did it do that? Does a protein have life? No. Does an ameba have life? Yes. Can we create life with materials only? No. So how does it happen by accident outside of a lab?
Its not that I can't describe the nature of Hale Bop, so I automatically attribute its qualities to something supernatural.
But when I can't explain how a fully assembled 747 is sitting in my back yard, I can safely draw some conclusions.
All IC says, is that if there is a "machine" then there has to be a designer. Why isn't that a valid assumption? If you saw a completely black, square, 1000ft long rectangular oblisque floating on a intercept path with the moon, and it changed course to match the moon's rotation around the earth, you would have scientists celebrating that we have discovered incontrovertible that intelligent life is currently going to be contacting earth.
So, in my opinion, the suggestion that IC is not science, is like saying logic is not science. Deductive reasoning AND inductive reasoning are both used in science all the time.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, many people say that evolution must be true. But tomorrow, we could find a modern human's bone inside of a frozen T-rex's stomach and all your assurances go out the window. Science would be scrambling to figure that one out. But, just because they have not figured it out, yet, doesn't mean that they wont rush to dismiss with the fervor of a ravenous wolf.
Irreducable complexity is a scientific concept, because the premis is repeatable in a lab. It says, "If you take away any one component, the whole organism will stop being viable." Its the biological lowest common denominator. How can that not be science? I don't get it.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

Flagellum? I haven't heard that one. How many chemical reactions are necessary for a cell to sense light? 18? Sorry I can't remember. Look at the system needed for blood to clot. How can this not be science?

Darwin himself brought up the subject of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity comes from known science, not the unknown. Y'all want to ignore what can't be explained for fear that someone may infer the existence of a God you choose not to believe in. Shame on you. Touting science as long as it serves your purpose is what you might accuse creationists of, isn't it?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community. the goal of intelligent design is to establish that god created everything, everyone knows this. everyone knows that intelligent design is about religion and not science. we "could" find human bones in a dinosaur? sure, usgrant. you let me know when that happens and we will have a great discussion, until then we must come to terms with what we know, what is reality.

12th, proclaiming that god did it is not science. it simply is not science. forgive me for not believing the bible over modern science.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.