Stubbyfinger,

From what I've read, Stein interviewed Sternberg, a biologist, and was told he lost his postition at Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed artlicle that mentioned ID.

 

Stubby

you haven't answered the simplist question yet.

Have you seen the movie?

Because I've read all the critics as well as seeing the movie so typing out their biased reviews does nothing unless you've seen the movie. You sit there and watch the squirming and you can see quite plainly, they're lying especially when you can see plainly the paperwork that contradicts what they just said. You accuse the creationists as lying but you haven't seen and heard with your own eyes have you?

Oh and there's one expert in France, with an impressive scientific pedigree (can't remember his name) who came across as very credible and comfortable and honest. My son said he wants to meet this guy. He was very impressed, as was I, by what he said in this movie.

Don't tell me these guys haven't lost their jobs. They have all over the place.

My son was collaborating on TBI with another Scientist recently. And this guy was going on and on about what a bunch of idiots these Christians are and how they don't have a clue about Science not knowing that my son was one of the idiots he was referring to. Because my son is very intelligent with a 4.0 and the top of his class (and the only Christian btw) this guy didn't even give it a thought. My son kept his mouth shut.

Now tell me who the idiot is.

Ock. I'll get back to you....no time.

I agree. Turns out, the more scientists examine inaminate nature and living organisms, the more obvious it becomes that everything was designed..and more everything was designed for life to exist ...this "fitness" of all things together is proof of God's Creatorship...and it's by science that we are learning it.

Take the human body...specifically the laryngeal nerve as taken from a writing by Frank Sherwin.

The recurrent largygeal nerve (RLN) in man is found branching off the 10th cranial nerve in the chest cavity. The 12th cranial nerves are part of the beautifully designed autonomic nervous system that controls involuntary body processes, including digestion, heart rate, and respiration.

Now, Evolutionists claim the Creator is a bad engineer having the RLN dropping into the chest and looping around a ligament of the lundg before going back up to the larynx (voice box). Evolutionists Michael Denton states, "The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops around the aorta and back up to the  larynx instead of taking a more direct route."

Why did the Creator design the loop of the RLN which to the Eovlutionist biologist is both strange and unnecessary, basing these judgments on Darwiniam (macro-evolution). But Creation scientists and medical doctors are investigating and have several ideas. There are branches of the RLN going above and below the larynx that would allow some preservation of function if either one is severed. The RLN passes tightly under the aorta  and perhaps variation in the diameter of the aorta could alter the function of the RLN.

The evolutionists can't  explain the origin and gradual evolution of our 3 pound brain, certianly not its amazing complexity  from "simple life forms" while the Creation scientists continue to invesitgate the puzzling RLN route.  

Creation scientists have answered other so-called bad designs arguments used by Evolutionists that have since received good, scientific answers. One example is the designed thumb of the panda bear that the late SJ Gould repeatedly cited this poor, bad feature, but he ignored the fact that panda bears have been doing just fine with this supposedly inferior structure.

Richard Dawkins maintained the retina was "wired backwards". Today, we hear nothing about this alleged imperfect manner of wiring. Why? because sceintists have shown our retinas are designed exactly the way they should be in order to receive light and direct the impulses via the optic nerves to the back of the brain where they are made into images. If, the eye were designed by the way Eovlutionists like Dawkins specifications, we'd all be blind!

ID theory states that design in nature can be empirically detected. this has been shown now by those sceintists working on the inner workings of cells.  

\

 

 

 

Would you two just stop pretending to support ID?  You don't believe ID theory any more than I do.  ID theory says that *A* designer or designers created everything.  That includes the possibility of ANY sufficiently intelligent being, not just gods.  You've both been singing the praises of Jesus on this site so long, I find it amazing to think that YOU think the rest of us are suddenly going to forget that fact.  The only reason you support ID is because if somehow it could be proven that everything WAS designed, then you could immediately say "See?  Told you god created everything" which would just be Religious Gap practice all over again.

It's simple, thinking for oneself is the enemy of everyone who wants to control the dialogue.  Science isn't any more immune to that fact as religion or philosophy.  When the Wright Brothers were flying in Kitty Hawk, NC, many of the leading scientists of the day were denying it was happening. 

I remember when the University of Utah announced finding a breakthrough in Cold Fusion.  The breakthrough wasn't everything they hoped it was, but the reactions from the rest of the scientific community was much more revealing than the flaws in the conclusions.

Professors from Ivy League schools in the North East US spoke out about how a mere State University in a Western State could never come up with such a finding.  Physicists scoffed at the very idea that chemists would be able to make such a breakthrough.   These were scientific arguments based on data collected and observations, these were the petty bickerings of people who were afraid they'd lose funding if someone else made such a huge breakthrough.

It isn't surprising that science has become more about politics than scientific method.  Whether in the universities, government agencies or the private sector, modern science is about collecting grants, mostly from the government.  I've often wondered how many scientists today aren't on the government dole.

I actually have an article about that I just finished writing last night and hope to post today.

Check it out when I get it done.

 

I, very sadly, agree with this.  Everyone should want to contribute to the uncovering of objective data, but most people aren't equipped with the skills necessary to separate objective data from BS.

 

By itself, and utilized correctly, the Scientific Method, is a beautiful thing.  It's a noble thing.  But yeah, there are those scientists with ulterior motives.  The trick is, don't blame science, and don't blame the field they are in - blame the actual people who are doing the wrong thing.  Fortunately for science, there are always lots of other scientists self-policing the outliers.

Ok and Ock's answer to this was that Evolution doesn't pretend to know the answer of origins. It does however offer a tangiable explanation of how we got from microbes to humans. That's not to say its true, but using the Scientific Method things like genetic mutations across generations have been observed (The fruit fly experiment for one, which for some bizzare reason people point to as a means to disprove macro-evolution). So we have Scientific proof of this, observable evidence.

Why Evolution is Science

The Theory of Evolution says that these mutations (which noone will dispute), over a given period of time will lead to certain members of the species branching off and not mating with the rest.

If you apply an even greater amount of time to this and remember the first step of this proceess is happening all throughout this, different branches of a specicies not mating with each other and becomming more and more differnet as genetic mutations are only inherited, eventually you get a new species.

It is a scientific theory that is principly based on a scientific fact (genetic mutations in every generation), with the addition of the logic of time and these mutations will lead to a new species. It may not 100% true, but nor is any Scientific Theory, as if they were, you'd have many Scientists out of the job so to speak. Theories are always there to be tested so long as you test them using the Scientific Method.

Why Intelligent Design is not a Science

Intelligent Design (or ID i'll refer to it as from here on out) observes the theory of evolution and says that due to irreducible complexity shows (or proves) that certain creatures could not have evolved.

The problem with irreducible complexity is that it is essentially anti-science in it's very nature. It has no scientific evidence because it relies on what science cannot prove as it's evidence.

This is quite a claim, but i  can back it up with the very example that ID proponents used when they first looked at Irreducible Complexity.

The bacterial flagellum has a propulsion device (if anyone saw this movie would know of) that is apparently so complex that it defies the theory of evolution, in that in order for every part to have come about from evolution it would of had to of been useful at every stage of the mutation.

If we accepted Intelligent Design as a theory of science, we'd of probably for a very long time just left it at that (not that this doesn't happen in other areas of science admittedly). We'd of said 'God did it guys, let's just leave it at that'.

Instead thanks to the nature of Science and it's boldness to challenge the unkown we came to understand that the propulsion mechanisim actually was reducible, from studies of harmful bacteria we noticed similarities between the propulsion mechanisim of bacteria flagellum, to that of a rather harmful bacteria's toxin delivery device (like needle).

If we had abandoned the Scientific Method and accepted Intelligent Design we'd of probably not discovered this (if at all) for a very long time and as such our understanding of a part of science would have been hindered thanks to ID.

Conclusion

I hope i have shown you the damage that can be caused by introducing these religious and philisophical beliefs into the realms of Science. If even after this explanation you still feel as though ID should be taught as a Science, then i'm afraid we cease to become intellectually compatable as people and fear that any such debate won't reach a reasonable outcome.

Your are trying to enforce your own personal belief on the one thing that tries to deliver an indescriminative truth, but by it's own admitting (and indeed in the hope of it's own perponents) will never pretend to fully have the entire truth.

Ock:

Agreed, it isn't science that is the problem, but the powers that be in science.

I have no doubt that most scientists are ethical people who want nothing more than to advance society through their little corner of the science world. I also have no doubt that, when it comes down to making the choice between ethics and funding, most leaders in science would take the funding.

Scotteh,
If, as you say, the fruit fly experiment proves macro evolution, after all these years of experimentation, exactly what new organism or insect or whatever evolved from the fruit fly?

 

I don't claim to know a *lot* about this - it's really Mari's department.  She's seen the funding crunch so many times it's silly.  This statement does sound, though, as if scientists in general would be unethical in order to get the money they need to continue their research, and, for my little bit of experience, I not only don't see that as true, I see it as almost impossible.

 

One of the places Mari worked, there was this guy who ran the show for their research, ultimately.  He didn't do any of the actual science, but he was "in charge" of the operation.  This was the guy who wrote the proposals for the funding and submitted them to NIH.  The research they were doing had to do with determining the presence of proteins (or maybe the lack of them) that would be an early indicator to various kinds of cancer.  They called these "biomarkers."  (Mari will probably be saying "Holy crap...he WAS listening" when she reads this )  Anyway, during the process of this guy having to write the proposals required to get funds for further proteomic research, there was never any question of faking anything in order to get the money.  I got the idea that NIH was too smart to pull one over on.  If your work didn't warrant funding, there wasn't much you could do in the way of "faking it" that wouldn't be discovered.

Plus, the most likely result of "faking it" for a scientist is career suicide. You may get the funding once, but probably not ever again, let alone a job or the respect of your peers.

Ock:

It's not a shot at scientists, or even those who run programs, it is simple human nature. When most people, in any walk of life, are forced to decide between their ethics or the income, pick the income every time.



Actually, fraud is rampant. It's also easy to cover for. Researchers will tell you that there is no real standard of excellence in research. If one bit of research is proven wrong, it is considered part of the research beast. How many pharmacueticals have been exposed for the fraud they were? How much of science is scrutinized as strictly as medication? If they can slip things through, anyone can.

"Evolution" has certainly come to be a confusing term with many different theories out there that compete for public affirmation. Not all "evolution" theory is science. Micro evolution, that is, small change within the same species is the only one that is science.

Naturalistic Evolution Theory, or Macro Evolution, aka called Darwinian Evolution, is unwavering faith that life on earth (including man) evolved over a span of billions of years by the purposeless and natural process. The media, academia and the secular scientific community are convinced that Darwinism is a fact to be accounted for, rather than a set of hypotheses to be tested, and that's why we are dealing with a philosophical belief and not empirical science. You gotta be a true believer because there is no scientific evidence for macroevolution.

SCOTTEH POSTS:

You are describing Darwinianism using mutations as the supposed mechanism for macro-evolution, Scotteh. Quite a fanciful idea. Problem is there are no species that mutated into a completely different one. Furthermore, in such a process as you describe, there ought to be a staggering number of these "different branches" of a mutant species with fossils galore. Where are these genetic mutations which supposedly eventually produced a new species?

Creation Theory attempts to defend the biblical account of the origin of the universe and all that's in it, most importantly mankind. God created each "kind" separately. Those who hold to CT freely admit variations including young earth theory. Archaeology and the fossil record support the Bible rather than Darwinism.

There is no doubt from the movie that Darwinists have a profound problem with what can be observed in the argument from Intelligent Design. Order of the "type" found in biology clearly doesn't reside within matter, but rather is imposed upon it and the very existence of the laws of nature by which all matter behaves suggests strongly that an Intelligence Being has designed the universe and all that's in it, is the Cause of nature's amazing intracicies and caused these laws to function.

There is no doubt that design in nature can be empirically detected, a fact which drives Naturalistic Evolutionists nutty. I'm thinking of our sight, digestion and immunity or the complexity of cells. In this sense, ID is a scientific revolution...and after all, how dare ID enter the scientific realm of biology and raise questions of Darwinianism?

Yep, I think you understand human nature quite well, ParaTed.

I've heard of several cases where Creation scientists who were on to something had to stifle it to go along to get along so to speak. In short, they need to keep their job.