Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

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

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t 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.

ggirard writes: The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive.

There is no theory of creationism. There isn't even a testable hypothesis.

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?

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 aren’t 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

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.

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