NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

A school board, the lowest level of government in education, has decided to allow the teaching of creationism.As soon as some parent complains, the ACLU will blow this out of the water. Schools have been trying to teach creationism as science for over twenty years, and have always failed in the courts as soon as it is brought up. My personal estimate is that the Creationists in Georgia have about two years before being humiliated once again.

Ahmad, you said that you were a student of science but you're not acting like it.You were asked to provide a peer-reviewed source and all the quotes you provided came from popular books, not the journals. Not one was from a peer-reviewed source. Try again. [QUOTE][B]They are very well-known scientists and have contributed quite highly in the realm of Science and technology.[/QUOTE][/B]Argument from authority. Just because some scientists thought something was so is not the authority. The evidence is the authority. Try again. [QUOTE][B]Ah, the creationist conspiracy theory![/QUOTE][/B]They are the same. So far as I can tell this fellow is just using Christian Creationist arguments to make money off a Muslim audience. [QUOTE][B]They haven't been refuted, yet attempts were made.[/QUOTE][/B]Go to talkorigins.org and you will find all those arguments refuted. They're so old most of us don't bother rebutting them any more. [QUOTE][B]As a matter of fact of fact, they are being incorporated in mainstream science. [/QUOTE][/B]Where are the journal references? [QUOTE][B]Science, as I understand it, is a tool to unravel, to decode, to discover, to advance, to ascend, and to eliminate the wrath of ignorance and superstition. Science does not contradict Religion... [/QUOTE][/B]But what if the religion is "ignorance" and "superstition"? [QUOTE][B]Theory of Evolution contradicts the Law of thermodynamics. So if a theory contradicts a Law, which one would you go for?[/QUOTE][/B]You don't seem to understand the definition of a theory and a law. A law is a repeatable phenomenon that occurs in nature, a theory is a mechanism that explains many observations. Theories never become laws because the two are completely different in purpose. Therefore to automatically assume that a law is superior to a theory is incorrect because there is no such hierarchy. Also laws are based upon what has already been observed, so an exception in a law predicted by a theory may occur.The Law of Gravity states that apples fall from trees. The Theories of gravity deal with the reasons why (curved space, gravitons, etc.) There are even *laws* of science that are based upon
*theories*. For example, all the Gas Laws in chemistry are based on Atomic Theory. If the rules of physics suddenly changed so that the Atomic Theory became invalid the gas laws would become invalid as well.Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not contradict evolution in the first place because it only states that entropy increases in closed systems. The biosphere is an open system, energy is being fed into the system all the time so order can continue to increase indefinately.You probably should read this tutorial:
Just a moment...

[QUOTE][B]Apart from that; the ATPase molecule, bacterial flagellum, the cilium etc are irreduibly complex.[/QUOTE][/B]Stone arches are also irreducibly complex, but they are natural, not designed.

[QUOTE][B]If you know, most of the popular science journals like Nature (John Maddox), Scientific American (John Rennie) and a host of others are[/QUOTE][/B]Scientific American is not a journal. It's a popular magazine like "Time" or "People" or "Byte" except with a scientific bent. Or it used to be scientific. The magazine is dumbing down for a less technical audience these days to boot."Nature" is a journal. However, "atheists" do not censor the scientific journals. What is published goes through an anonymous peer-review process. If Creationists are not being published it must be either (1) They aren't submitting papers or (2) they don't have any evidence. And I have never heard of a Creationist showing off rejection notices from the journals! *However*, Dr. Robert Gentry has published his work about polonium haloes in Science (I've read the paper myself). He met the standards of evidence for publication and so the paper made it through. Of course lots of people have found flaws in the geological assumptions he made (Dr. Gentry is a physicist). In fact you would probably be surprised at the things that occasionally do get published. I have books with excerpts from some of the more "interesting" papers that get published in the journals from time to time. [QUOTE][B]J. Bonner, "Book Review,"[/QUOTE][/B]Book reviews don't count because they don't go through peer review. The technical papers go through peer review, columns do not. This particular columnist was only stating his personal opinion, which is not of great import. Also letters to the journals do not contain great import either. I've actually read a pro-UFO commentary in Science by none other than J. Allen Hyneck, in the letters section. If they'll publish that they'll publish anything there. If somebody's opinion on Creationism there substantiates Creationism, then I guess the truth is out there... [QUOTE][B]National Review[/QUOTE][/B]Is not a peer-reviewed journal. In fact it has nothing to do even with science or technology either. It's another magazine. Here is their website: National Review: Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy, & Current Events [QUOTE][B]Discover(Science Journal)[/QUOTE][/B]Discover is a popular magazine that covers science and technology, not a peer reviewed journal. SciAm is better, but is headed in that direction.A list of journals, off the top of my head:Science
Nature
Eos
Geochemica et Cosmochemica
Icarus
Journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American ScientistAnd many others. [QUOTE][B]Physics Bulletin[/QUOTE][/B]I think this is PR. The problem is that it is written in the first person. Scientific papers are always written in the third person. What we have here is obviously a letter or some similar commentary. [QUOTE][B]For counter-rebuttals and responses go to trueorigins.org, icr.org or harunyahya.com[/QUOTE][/B]I've visited all of these. I've rebutted many of their arguments probably more than a hundred times. It's always the same old thing. Pick any argument you like, present it to us, and we'll shoot it down. [QUOTE][B]The Law of thermodynamics is not BASED on the theory of evolution but the dynamics of heat and entropy. However, if the theory of evolution contradicts this Law, how are we supposed to reconcile and justify?[/QUOTE][/B]First you have to demonstrate that it does violate the law. Secondly you must come to grips that this is an interesting case because 2LOT is a law based upon probability. Somewhere in the universe heat might actually flow from a cold object to a warm object (breaking the law) but it's extremely improbable. [QUOTE][B]But the biosphere is enclosed in a closed system - The Universe. Should we not take that in account?[/QUOTE][/B]We are taking that into account. Energy to fuel the opposition to entropy in Earth's biosphere is being provided by the Sun. But as that energy is used and expended as heat it is no longer available. At the source of that energy, a non-reversible fusion reaction is converting two moles of hydrogen into one mole of helium. But that helium can never convert back to hydrogen -- some of the energy is lost forever as heat. Order on Earth is increasing. *But* in response, *disorder* in the universe as a whole is increasing proportionally, and the amount of free energy in the universe is also decreasing. Therefore you have a universal increase in entropy so 2LOT is satisfied.This process is really more common than it would seem. If all systems always progressed to decay, as you are implying Earth's biosphere should, life would be impossible. True, people eventually become decrepit with age and expire, but first they have to grow and reach maturity (increase in complexity). The fuel for growth is in the food they eat and the oxygen they breathe. Like the biosphere, individual organisms are not closed systems, that's why they require energy input from their surroundings.

[QUOTE][B]Firstly, what criterias do you use to distinguish between a scientific magazine (as SCIAM, discover) and journals?[/QUOTE][/B]A scientific journal uses the process of peer review. Incoming papers from a scientist in field X are anonymously submitted to a randomly chosen group of anonymous researchers in field X. The panel reviews the evidence and claims the author makes and decides if those claims are supported, and what revisions should be made. The reviewers mail the requirements to the journal, who forward the requirements to the author. After a couple of rounds both parties are satisfied and the article is published in the journal. Neither party knows the identity of the other until the author is revealed when the paper is published. Many papers are published anonymously so the author is never known, except to the journal. This way scientists can write about unpopular or controversial topics without having an affect on their professional reputations.This is where science happens. Before you read it in the newspaper or hear it on TV, discoveries are announced in these journals. Usually when an announcement is made you will notice it starts with "Scientists in the journal Nature announced..." (or whatever journal).Journals are intended primarily for one audience: scientists and researchers and are usually highly technical. They are the primary means of communication in the scientific community. [QUOTE][B]Secondly, why don't you accept quotes from scientific magazines or even medias like national review? Do they lie?[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not going to accuse anyone of deliberate dishonesty but nobody is checking them for accuracy. Also, the articles in them are written by journalists. The papers in the journals are written by the scientists themselves. Finally I do not offer a vote of confidence for the National Review. Again, I am not accusing them of dishonesty but they seem far too politically motivated. [QUOTE][B]For the sake of fairness, Nature should have at the least taken the step to publish one creation article or hold debates. They don't do that now do they?[/QUOTE][/B]Why should Nature publish a Creationist article "for fairness"? Shouldn't they also publish a pro-astrology article or flat-Earth paper for fairness as well? Fairness is irrelevant. It's all about the evidence. Plus, if Creationist papers are not submitted to a journal that journal cannot publish a Creationist paper. Where are the rejection slips? [QUOTE][B]Well yeah... Science is another magazine like SCIAM. Here's their website[/QUOTE][/B]No, it's a scientific journal, sciam is a popular magazine.Here are links to how incoming manuscripts are reviewed. The differences caused by the peer-review system are apparent:http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/home.shtml [QUOTE][B]Its not a letter or a commentary but a statement by H.P Lipson, a physicist.[/QUOTE][/B]A statement of his personal opinion. Not a technical paper. [QUOTE][B]Have you sent rebuttals to the author of the site?[/QUOTE][/B]No, what point is there? But if you will pick an argument we will offer rebuttals. [QUOTE][B]Have a look at the essay by Timothy Wallace as he rebuts and clarifies how evolution violates the 2LOT[/QUOTE][/B]Have a look at talkorigins.org, there are rebuttals there. [QUOTE][B]No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.[/QUOTE][/B]With life, these mechanisms are large molecules. Miller demonstrated that amino acids are generated by fairly mundane processes in the lab. This was order from disorder at the cost of energy, with very little in the way of "energy conversion mechanisms" necessary. Then of course you have order from disorder in nature all of the time. Sand dunes, charge differentiation in thunderstorms, desalination through the water cycle, these things don't require any "conversion mechanisms" outside of what nature provides. And finally, the 2LOT equations themselves never mention any conversion mechanisms at all. The whole idea seems to be a Creationist one, "Creationist Voodoo Thermodynamics" I have heard it called. [QUOTE][B]Actually, the 2LOT also includes open systems.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes, it includes all systems. But it does not require that entropy always increases everywhere, just that net entropy increases.And I would encourage you to cease taking quotes out of context.

[QUOTE][B]Time magazine is not credible?[/QUOTE][/B]Not in regards to science, where only PR papers count.If Creationism is such a great contender to evolution, where are the papers?

By the way, Richard Kerr is Science's journalist. This is still not on the same level as a peer-reviewed paper, but it's better than most non-pr sources.

Good to see a Zhimbo post every so often.

(An Aside)Yes but I harbor no ill feelings toward you or Moose or Mammuthus or Blitz or Schraf or any of the other people I spout off at, even the ones I do so towards on a regular basis. As for Moose's comments I know he meant it very casually and probably had no idea it could be construed as offensive - that just isn't like him. That he never replied despite my incessant baiting speaks well of his character.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-18-2002]