Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:03 AM
395 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, ThinAirDesigns, vimesey (6 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
59606162
63
64Next
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 931 of 949 (745678)
12-25-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by NoNukes
12-25-2014 9:13 PM


Re: defending a thesis
1 -- he can still read as a lurker.

2 -- the answers are for all lurkers and followers, not just the poster.

3 -- many suspensions have been lifted.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2014 9:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2015 1:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 932 of 949 (745771)
12-27-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 6:15 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Rodnas writes:

Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer.


But nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that that is true.

Rodnas writes:

I have no idea how anything was programmed;


Of course you don't. Nobody does.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? If you knew how it was programmed, it would be science and not religion. If you knew how it was programmed, it could be taught in school. But since neither you nor anybody else knows how it was programmed, it should only be taught in church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 933 of 949 (746192)
01-04-2015 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by dwise1
12-25-2014 11:54 AM


Re: A Q of authority
DWise1 writes:

Rodnas writes:

... and a code requires a programmer.


. . .

Also, are we really talking about an actual code here? Or is that just an analogy we use to aid in discussing genetics? Like the "Laws of Nature" which do not actually exist, but rather are human formulations of patterns we humans have noticed in how natural processes are observed to work. Or the sun and moon rising and setting, which we still say despite knowing how false that analogy is.


On Facebook, Ed Babinski has posted INACCURATE METAPHORS for DNA OFTEN USED BY CREATIONISTS AND I.D.ists. The two that he lists are:
quote:
1) the idea that DNA functions as a "blueprint"
2) the idea that DNA functions like a "computer code" (or even like an "encyclopedia" according to Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute, whatever that means).

His discussion of the second metaphor follows:
quote:
The 'computer code' metaphor is also a poor one, for multiple reasons (this particular analogy is popularized by Discovery Institute fellow, Stephen C. Meyer). The way a computer code works is that the exact sequence of the code - the precise order of the binary 1s and 0s - spells out exactly what operations the computer must perform. But in genetics, the sequence is only part of the picture. Just as important are genetic regulatory networks - which genes are turned on at what times and in combination with which other genes. Phenotypes are not simply the result of particular gene sequences but the result of specific gene-gene (or gene network-gene network) interactions.

But DNA bears little relation to a "code" in a more fundamental way. Consider exactly what a "code" is. A code is a system of arbitrary symbols used to represent ideas and objects. In a sense, language itself is a "code"; the symbol "dog" represents that furry tetrapod with a waggly tail, for example. In a code, the symbols themselves have no inherent meaning. The letter "d" is meaningless by itself, as are the letters "o" and "g". It is only in combination that they derive meaning, and their meaning is derived from the idea that they represent. Furthermore, they only have meaning because we give them meaning. "Dog" is merely the label we apply to Fido; in a universe without sentient beings, "dog" would be meaningless. DNA does not fit this description at all. DNA is not arbitrary in any way; each letter of the genetic "code" placed in a certain order constitutes an actual biological compound. ACCGTCGA might be the gene for determining how long your toe hair is, but unlike a code, A, C, T and G each have their own non-arbitrary meaning. And this meaning exists independently of human sentience, it exists because certain molecules stick together and move about naturally in reference to one another. And those molecules would keep doing just that even if sentient being didn't exist at all.

What DNA is, is a polymeric chemical that follows a dynamic chemical process, governed by universal physical rules. It is only a "code" in the same sense that the natural process known as nuclear fusion is a "code" for how stars produce light.

Nor does the genetic code necessarily need a designer/creator, since physical complexity can increase from the basic assumption of fundamental physical laws, and theoretically it could eventually form self-catalytic chain reactions that could evolve further complexity such that "coding systems" that worked faster, better or left behind a greater abundance of some self-catalytic chain reactions over others, would proliferate.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by dwise1, posted 12-25-2014 11:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 6:53 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 937 by Rodnas, posted 01-10-2015 8:39 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9442
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 934 of 949 (746200)
01-04-2015 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by RAZD
12-25-2014 9:19 PM


Re: defending a thesis
1 -- he can still read as a lurker.
2 -- the answers are for all lurkers and followers, not just the poster.
3 -- many suspensions have been lifted.

All true of course.

It's also true that Rodnas spent his time here yanking chains and not responding to the discussion. He was apparently so successful at it that people are still following up a week after he left here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2014 9:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by jar, posted 01-04-2015 1:41 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 935 of 949 (746201)
01-04-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by NoNukes
01-04-2015 1:33 PM


Re: defending a thesis
It's also true that Rodnas spent his time here yanking chains and not responding to the discussion.

Hit & run is a classic Biblical Christian/Creationist/Conman tactic but that does not mean it is not important to hammer home the point that the reason they do run is that their positions are indefensible and nonsense.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2015 1:33 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 936 of 949 (746265)
01-05-2015 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 933 by dwise1
01-04-2015 12:17 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Babinsky's objections for why DNA is not like a computer code are very weak and unconvincing, primarily because DNA is very much like a computer code. "Brains are like computers" is a much better example of an "inaccurate metaphor."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2015 12:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 937 of 949 (746934)
01-10-2015 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by dwise1
01-04-2015 12:17 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Ed Babinski writes:

physical complexity can increase from the basic assumption of fundamental physical laws, and theoretically it could eventually form self-catalytic chain reactions that could evolve further complexity such that "coding systems" that worked faster, better or left behind a greater abundance of some self-catalytic chain reactions over others, would proliferate.

Since biology is not a complex form of physics it requires a code/language with meaning in order to carry out its functions of mitosis and meiosis. At least that is what biologists are saying. The question then is weather this code was programmed in the original DNA or if it was a process of natural self-organization. Whatever the case, would there be a problem in teaching this science in schools?

Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given.

Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given.

Edited by Serapatatia, : Added text.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2015 12:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-10-2015 9:30 PM Rodnas has not yet responded
 Message 939 by NoNukes, posted 01-11-2015 1:01 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator
Posts: 2072
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 938 of 949 (746953)
01-10-2015 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 937 by Rodnas
01-10-2015 8:39 PM


Merging of Rodnas and Serapatatia
Rodnas,

You asked to be gone so I obliged you. If you want to come back you should petition one of the admins.

Trying to sneak back in with a new account is just cheating.

AdminAsgara

Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Rodnas, posted 01-10-2015 8:39 PM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9442
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 939 of 949 (746958)
01-11-2015 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by Rodnas
01-10-2015 8:39 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Whatever the case, would there be a problem in teaching this science in schools?

A problem teaching what science?

Science is not just whatever one or more biologists says. Instead it is what one or more scientists can back up or at least demonstrate that he is in the process of backing it up. You have yet to show us that anything you say here rises to the level of hypothesis, let alone theory.

So that's the problem teaching your ID-lite in school. It is not science.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Rodnas, posted 01-10-2015 8:39 PM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
ggirard
Junior Member (Idle past 593 days)
Posts: 1
From: Fort St. John BC Canada
Joined: 06-13-2015


Message 940 of 949 (759600)
06-13-2015 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


The theories of evolution and creationism arent mutually exclusive. It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as purported by science. There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it. Personally, I find it easier to accept that there is intelligent purpose in evolution than to accept that it has been driven solely by natural selection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by ringo, posted 06-13-2015 12:21 PM ggirard has not yet responded
 Message 942 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 1:05 PM ggirard has not yet responded
 Message 943 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2015 1:16 PM ggirard has not yet responded
 Message 944 by MrHambre, posted 06-13-2015 1:29 PM ggirard has not yet responded
 Message 949 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2015 4:47 PM ggirard has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 941 of 949 (759602)
06-13-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by ggirard
06-13-2015 12:17 PM


ggirard writes:

The theories of evolution and creationism arent mutually exclusive.


There is no theory of creationism. There isn't even a testable hypothesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by ggirard, posted 06-13-2015 12:17 PM ggirard has not yet responded

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 942 of 949 (759606)
06-13-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by ggirard
06-13-2015 12:17 PM


It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years

Although I agree with the premise ... doesn't that contradict the "6000 years" creationist timeline?


evidence over faith ... observation over theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by ggirard, posted 06-13-2015 12:17 PM ggirard has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 943 of 949 (759607)
06-13-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by ggirard
06-13-2015 12:17 PM


Welcome to the fray, ggirard.

... It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as purported by science. There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. ...

Indeed there is voluminous empirical evidence that (a) the earth is very very old, and (b) that natural selection has occurred and continues to occur.

... However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it. ...

Indeed, natural selection is only one process of evolution, and omitting the other processes is like trying to walk with only one leg:

Mutation is what causes the variation that selection operates on, it is random while selection is ecology\species specific.

Another factor contributing to evolution is genetic drift.

The theories of evolution and creationism arent mutually exclusive. ...

As already noted, creationism is not a scientific theory and thus is not on the same degree of explanatory ability as the tested and validated theory of evolution.

There are many religions and many versions of creation concepts, and the issue is not so much what you believe, but whether what you believe is contradicted by objective empirical evidence, such as the belief in a young earth.

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

... Personally, I find it easier to accept that there is intelligent purpose in evolution than to accept that it has been driven solely by natural selection.

You are free to believe anything you choose, reality does not care what you think, and opinions have shown remarkable lack of ability to alter it.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by ggirard, posted 06-13-2015 12:17 PM ggirard has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 944 of 949 (759609)
06-13-2015 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by ggirard
06-13-2015 12:17 PM


There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it.

On the one hand, there's a lot of controversy in scientific circles about whether natural selection can be said to be the prime mechanism driving evolution. But on the other hand, at least natural selection can be demonstrated, unlike a "supreme consciousness."

And there's no controversy concerning whether all species on Earth share common ancestry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by ggirard, posted 06-13-2015 12:17 PM ggirard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2015 4:50 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 945 of 949 (759612)
06-13-2015 1:53 PM


Now how many creationists would you expect to appear with GG in their name before it becomes more than a coincidence?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2015 3:17 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
59606162
63
64Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017