20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

So, you would predict that you wouldn't get fossils of creatures with both reptile and mammal features preceding fossils of mammals. But you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both amphibian and reptile characteristics preceding reptiles, but you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both fish and amphibian characteristics preceding amphibians, but you do.What you would get, according to Jewish mythology, is fossils of all the animals "created" found in the same layers of rock. And you don't.Intelligent conclusion? Jewish creation mythology is no more true than any other mythology from any other culture.Do you really want discussion of your beliefs to be exposed to scientific rigour in school science classes? Future generations of kids will be laughing at you. Science is based on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism, and many, probably most, of its practitioners throughout history have been believers in the supernatural to some extent, and many (although probably not most) still are today.It does not assume that the supernatural cannot exist, but does look for natural explanations for natural phenomena, quite logically, as all the explanations for natural phenomena that have ever proved to be true and useful have been natural.People like you seem to expect non-natural explanations for natural phenomena to be given equal space in science classes, for some strange reason. Presumably, if you found a damp patch occurring sometimes on an inside wall in your house, you wouldn't just look for natural solutions, like the rain entering the roof at some point and seeping down the wall, you would also equally consider non-natural alternatives, like maybe there's a poltergeist who comes out at night and always pisses in the same place. And you want to burden future generations of school kids with this attitude.What science does is look for natural explanations, the only kind that have ever helped us in understanding the universe, and keeps on looking, which is why creationist type super-naturalists hate it, as it has a tendency to knock their pet myths on the head. Too bad, but some of us will always want to find out the truth, so the old attitude promoted by religions of "truths" based on blind unreasoning faith is dying out.

Certainly, if your designer was designing in steps in order to deliberately try to give the illusion of evolution. There's absolutely no reason why a designer should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility other than that. Then your prediction is smashed not only by fish with leg-like fins, but by fish with leg-like fins with ankles, not to mention amphibians with fin-like legs.As for a leg converting into a wing, there are living creatures with limbs that serve as both, so you don't need much evolutionary imagination on that one.You may be unwisely using YEC arguments in defense of I.D. when many I.D.ers would disagree with you. Is that a standard I.D. position? It won't get into the classroom if the lies are too blatant, you know. If you think bacteria becoming anything other than bacteria should be a common occurrence according to modern evolutionary theory, then do feel free to give us the technical explanation as to why that should be.And if you think that single cells "morphed" into human beings, perhaps you should be enlightening us on a subject that you've actually bothered to look into, rather than evolutionary biology. I see we're back to brainwashing again. Children never get the chance to learn the great truth that an intelligent designer created all things bright and beautiful until they have been thoroughly indoctrinated with ideas like mutation and natural selection, evil things for which there actually is evidence. Is that what you're claiming?In which case, you know little about the world you live in, because it's actually the other way around, and most children in the world have some form of "I.D." drummed into them from a very early age, which is probably the real explanation for the I.D. movement. Its proponents have never recovered.My view of religious indoctrination is evidence based, and explains why children from different cultural backgrounds will profess to believing in different religions. We agree on something. You do realise that this would mean the end of faith based religions, don't you? No doubt handicapped in a flood by the fact that they can swim.I don't think I should go into catastrophological science (I had to get my favourite creationist phrase in somewhere) here as there are flood threads, and I often get admin. warnings for not taking the flood seriously. I just can't.{I'll get to the rest of your long post later, as I've just been called to eat.}

You mean they'll be believing in an intelligent designer who deliberately constructs us and the chimps from damaged D.N.A. with such strikingly similar patterns of damage that it can hardly be coincidence?This, of course, could be that invisible designer that I mentioned in the post above, trying very hard to make it look as though our biological history involved large scale evolution and common ancestry with other animals. It's a pity for those on your side of the debate that the designer did such awkward things. We have, obviously, to consider the possibility of a designer who wants us to believe in evolution, and wants to disguise Himself. As you can see, I'm open minded in my interpretation of the evidence.Shouldn't you, then, be doing His will, and believing what he wants you to believe? No. I think you're still confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Also, I have to point out that faith is required for belief in the supernatural, but not for belief in the natural world surrounding you, which can be built on observation, and that lack of faith is not faith.You mention fairy tales in a derogatory manner in your post, and my point is that many people may lack faith in fairies, but that lack of faith is not faith (by definition, if you think about it).So the child who believes in Santa Claus requires faith, but as there's no evidence for Santa's existence, the more mature child who lacks that belief just lacks faith. I'm not sure if you really understand. Once you've found hundreds of natural explanations for natural phenomena around you that work, and no supernatural explanations, then natural explanations for natural phenomena is definitely the default.I'm being completely fair to you super-naturalists. If I see something supernatural, like elves or ghosts or witches on broomsticks, I agree that supernatural explanations are called for.So, natural explanations for natural phenomena, and supernatural explanations for supernatural phenomena.If you see a leprechaun, call the boys from the Discovery Institute, or as you're in Africa, a local witch doctor should be equally effective. Ah, complexity. Here we are, complex beings made of complex atoms on a complex planet in a complex universe which obviously does complexity frequently and well, yet amongst us are simple souls who construct in their minds a fictional simple universe, so that in their simple universe, if the normal complexity is observed, it has to have been put there by a complex Intelligent Designer from outside the universe.Beratta, if complexity requires design by complex designers, then complex designers require designing, so they can never exist.But if complexity doesn't require a designer, then your intelligent designer could exist.You want smart, critical thinking kids? They'll pick a hole in the I.D. complexity argument easily. I thought you were a Christian? Since when has Christendom been against "dogma in the absence of clear unassailable proof"?Here's the deal. You have to show evidence of angels, and we'll show you mutations. You show evidence of heaven, and will show natural selection. And you show the Holy Ghost on film, and we'll show you transitional fossils.Actually, we've already done our part, so get going, because your posts constantly talk about evidence and proof in relation to evolutionary theory, but your religion seems to be excused from this obligation.

I've just looked at your post, and re-read the O.P., Beretta, and I realise that we'll be drifting well off the O.P. topic if I reply, the topic being about what the U.S. would be like after 20 years of learning religion in the science classes, so I probably shouldn't continue.Just briefly, you express concern about the lack of information on bird bone evolution somewhere in your post, so you'll be pleased to know that cladistics has identified over 80 common characteristics between the bones of birds and theropods. Also, that some theropods do have hollow bones. And that several flightless dinosaurs with feathers and early birds with teeth have been identified.

Do you have a schedule for this? Will you take away the passports of America's scientists, or just let them leave to enjoy the fast increasing wealth of countries like China, and help put those countries quickly ahead in the technology race while Americans are busy praying to an ancient middle-eastern tribal God?And do you think your triumph will be soon? Should we start preparing to receive refugees here in Europe now?

Given your view that chimps and ourselves don't share a common ancestor, will the study of the genomes of primates be banned in the brave new world of U.S. education that you're describing?You're going to have to hide stuff like this from the kids.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVAStuff that shows that you have less than one in a million chance of being right, Ray.Meaning that you are delusional.

The question was (in relation to the O.P. about twenty years of creationism/I.D. in the schools) would you ban or suppress information like this?It might be necessary, because most of the kids will have a better understanding of science and a better ability to reason than you do. They will understand that the video was not just about similarity in the genomes of humans and chimps, it was about a pattern of damage that can't be coincidental, and for which common descent is the only reasonable explanation. The interpretation requires no suppositions.So, IMO, it would be in your interests to suppress all comparisons of the genomes of all animals, and ban all further research into genetics. You'll also need to ban access to the internet and the world outside the U.S., because other countries will be doing this kind of research and publishing it.You can't just be expecting all students in the U.S. to sink to your own intellectual level, and misunderstand the video, although I suppose compulsory lobotomy type operations could be performed.So, will you be banning material such as the video I linked to?Edited by bluegenes, : grammar change for clarity

Consensus building is not a requirement of new theories, but consensus amongst the experts in the relevant field is necessary before a theory is taught in schools as the most likely explanation of the current evidence for whatever area it concerns.However, for a theory to be mentioned in the education system as an alternative to the consensus theory of the times, it's by no means necessary to have anywhere near half of the experts in the field behind it. Perhaps 5 to 10% might be sufficient.So, if the I.D. movement ever does develop its idea/hypothesis into a theory, then they should do what all other proponents of new theories do, which is to present whatever supportive evidence they've found to their colleagues, and start winning over support with this evidence. No new scientific theory that has proved important in the past has had its proponents attempting to teach it to children before convincing a substantial proportion of adult experts. It was rejected by many, and sometimes for valid reasons in terms of the times. There was no known way for the sun to burn for long enough without exhausting its fuel was one reasonable objection, for example. Darwin presented his theory for adult consideration, but I know of no example of him trying to get it taught in the classrooms of the time.Religions characteristically indoctrinate children, which is why we see different ones prevailing generation after generation in different areas of the world. The approach of the Discovery Institute is typical of a religious movement. Popular proselytizing, and an early attempt to indoctrinate kids before there's even a theory agreed upon.The lack of a coherent theory is inevitable, as no-one will be able to decide what the designer actually designs, and what he leaves to evolution. As they'll be no more evidence for one school of thought than another, attempting to build a consensus theory within the I.D. movement will just be like having a theological argument on what Allah does or doesn't do in the universe, when there's not even any evidence of Allah's existence, let alone his actions.I predict strong sectarian divisions as the movement crumbles. Natural selection on a simple level would be easy to test, so do you mean evidence of natural selection as the driving force behind species formation?If so, you're backing beliefs that have only a 1 in 250 chance of being true just on the basis of this one piece of research.

quote:

---

What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.

​

In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.

​

The new study - published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms - ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds - and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

​

“This helps fill a big gap that has existed in evolutionary studies,” says Daniel Funk, assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University. He authored the study with Patrik Nosil from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and William J. Etges from the University of Arkansas. “We have known for some time that when species invade a new environment or ecological niche, a common result is the formation of a great diversity of new species. However, we haven’t really understood how or whether the process of adaptation generally drives this pattern of species diversification.”

​

The specific question that Funk and his colleagues set out to answer is whether there is a positive link between the degree of adaptation to different environments by closely related groups and the extent to which they can interbreed, what biologists call reproductive isolation.

​

.....The odds that the association is simply due to chance are only one in 250, substantially higher than the standard confidence level of one chance in 20 that scientists demand.....

---

The full article here:http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html

Percy has pointed out that the thread is about 20 years of I.D. in schools, rather than complaining about what you want to perceive as faults in evolutionary theory. However, as I.D. is actually only another name for "God of the Gaps" arguments, you have little choice but to pursue your attempted line of justification for it.So here's some evidence of the "creative power of mutation and natural selection" for you. In return, you should offer concrete evidence of the intelligent designers in real time action, as they are I.D.'s "mechanisms", the exact equivalent of mutation and selection. "Teach the controversy" should be equally demanding of both sides, don't you agree?

quote:

---

Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

​

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

​

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

​

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.

​

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

---

From:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlwhere there are several other examples.The I.D. equivalent would be perhaps showing the intelligent designers practising genetic modification on organisms in a specific environment in order to improve their nature and chances of survival in relation to that environment. Either on film, or reliable eyewitness accounts. Both will do. I.D.ers agree that change over time happens, but disagree on the mechanisms, so the demands for evidence of their mechanism should be met.Kids might enjoy having nothing to learn about in their biology classes for twenty years, but that's not really the idea behind science teaching.

As do young most young earth creationists. It's the only thing in relation to origins theories/beliefs for which there is evidence that can be directly observed, so they have little choice. Their common conclusion is easily attacked and dismissed on the basis that they have no evidence for it. Someone can propose that fairies are sometimes required to help pollinate flowers, and claim the same validity as the I.D. suggestion.And the evidence for these fairies is exactly the same as the evidence for the invisible designers of biology. Zero.That's not stalling. No one needs to disprove things for which there is no evidence. Try disproving the existence of my fairies. And that's what I gave you in the post you're replying to.Prediction of ToE: There should be a correlation between environmental adaption and reproductive isolation.And in that research, there was. Tests done in real time, you mean? Easy. Look at the example I gave to Beratta in a post above. And also note my logical suggestion as to what the I.D. equivalent would be.http://EvC Forum: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum -->EvC Forum: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculumThe NS prediction is simply that the strains best suited to the low phosphate environment will prevail. Obvious, and easy to understand. Theories are used to explain observations. The main mechanisms of ToE can all be observed in the present. Meanwhile, evidence for I.D. and its special mechanism remain at a spectacular nothing.

And why don't you kneel down beside it and pray for the intelligent designer to assemble it for you? Evolutionists, my child, do not claim the instant production, design and assembly of complex biological phenomena. It is creationists who do this, so if you want instant assembly, your terrible analogy would be appropriate for them.We evos are the billions of years ones, remember.

And to satisfy your curiosity, I pointed you towards an earlier post of mine, which describes a test that illustrates both random mutation and natural selection in action. I'm happy to show you other examples on another thread, where we could make evidence for the respective mechanisms of ToE and I.D. the topic. It's easy to present evidence based on reality.

quote:

---

Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

​

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

​

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

​

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.

​

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

---

From:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlwhere there are several other examples.

It is O.T., and the reason it's there is because all the apologists for I.D. do on this thread is attack evolutionary theory, so I throw out some evidence which supports it, and then ask for the equivalent evidence for I.D. (knowing full well that there's none) in an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy.When faced with the evidence, you clearly have no understanding of it. The organisms are clones originally, is a point you should think about, and there were certainly new mutations, and the new strains were selected for.Now, on to the topic. In this brave new world of I.D. education, you need to come up with the equivalent of that test. That would be evidence of the intelligent designer doing some genetic modification on an organism that would benefit it in a new environment.And here's where superstition based theories fall down, because such demonstrations just can't be done. The magical designer or designers just won't manifest themselves and play ball.So I.D. cannot present evidence of its mechanism, the equivalent of RM and NS. It's like presenting evidence for any religion. There never is any, so the school children in twenty years' time will presumably just have to have faith.

I think that what CTS means by "false accusation" is someone else implying that he has denied that science works, CS. He's not saying that it doesn't work in the post you're replying to, so I think that you must've misread something.