scienceguy

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Sorry, guys... the phrase "bodify" should be corrected as "modify".

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  The Darwinian world view depends on the puerile theory that in only the last few thousand history of the 4.5 billion year history of planet earth was man able to use Intelligent Design to bodify the biological world.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<yes 10="" acurate="" age="" almost="" an="" and="" another="" archaeology="" atlantis="" come's="" complete="" cultural="" dating="" earth,the="" earth,which="" final="" for="" from="" full="" has="" history="" in="" information="" is="" it="" man's="" manwhile="" meanwhile,="" of="" on="" or="" other="" placement="" planet="" planetary="" quite="" scale="" search="" terms="" the="" this="" time="" to="" u.k,...="" universe's,="" years="" young,compared="">&gt;&gt; The qyuestion remains... do you believe this is an accurete Knowledgebase of the 4.5 billion hiostory of the planet earth? I don't think so.</yes>

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Rephrase the question:

  In the 4.5 billion year history of the planet, how do we know that other civilizations have not done Intelligent Design on the biology to "evolve" other biological organisns"?

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  What's your question?

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  One of the questions I have is this... we went from a 5,000 year history with a hunder-gatherer society, to a farming society, to a society that does genetic enginnering and genetic modification.

  How can we be sure that in the 4.5 BILLION year history of the planet, some other society has not been able to do genetic modification?

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  .....Clever way to approach a 6000 year old planet with all our life forms and geologic history...no thanks.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Looks like we have a difference of opinion...

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Here's an interesting quote by Lawrence Selden. I don't completely agree with his views, but they are interesting:

  I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Let me repeat something I've said before. Darwinism as a scientific theory, I believe has some value. It explains quite a bit about the physical world.

  What I argue is that it is just a theory, with limited applicability, limited scope, and not at all the entire answer to the biological riddle.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Ah, so you are NOT talking about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then, as it certainly has vast and penetrating importance and relevance throughout the fields of biological sciences. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; No, Darwinism as such has no effect on the validity on the subject of biology. If it were to be discredited tommorow, the rest of biology would not be affected.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Probably not. But then this mythical "Darwinism" straw man you are setting up has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution which does nothing of what you are arguing, so what is your point here? &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; if you have anything better to communicate as to your "scientific theory of Darwinism", go ahead and say it out loud.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Incorrect. In almost all cases it doesn't matter one way or the other to an organism. Most mutations do absolutely nothing to the organism's ability to have survivable offspring. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

  Questionable. You have no data on the number of stillborn or dead mutations.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;That also is debatable, as some part of the chromosomes and of the DNA is more likely to mutate than other. But the response to the environment is not random. The mutations or rearrangements of alleles that are best suited will begin to dominate in a population, and as the environment changes, so will the domination of various alleles. That is not random but rather depends on the allele's ability to confer competitive advantage in a population. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

  I'd have no problem with that characterization. The particular molecule that a cosmic ray smashes into is certainly random, and the effects are random, but the success of the eventual results are not randomly succesful.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Looks like I have to backtrack on a point. It turns out that multiplication of species is commonly thought of as a corrolary of the Darwinist idea. In fact, Darwin's book was titled "Origin of Species".

  It is not an essential part of Darwinian evolution as such, IMHO, just a logical consequence. Science is like that, when a theory suggests one or more consequences. The Darwinist theory can succesfully explain evolution of new and useful traits in an organism, can stand on its own, even if species differentiation fails to happen for other reasons.

  Which is not to say that Darwinism cannot have flaws, or severe limits in its area of applicability.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  I suppose that discussions of Darwinism versus ID as competing biological models is somewhat off post.

  The real issue is the downgrading of Darwinism to the status of a mere theory among other theories, in the Texas public school system.

  I've taken the stand that that is an improvement in the teaching of biology, and the treatment of science in general, as an organized practice of observing the phenomena in the world, developing theories that explain what we perceive, and replacing those theories with better ones.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Billusa99, thanks for joining the discussion.

  I'd have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

  Common descent and multiplication of species is itself an interesting idea, but is seperate from the Darwinist theory as such. Indeed, some proponents of Intelligent Design believe in it.

  Your mention of Gradualism is appropriate, but you have failed to include randomity in your list. Indeed, the idea of randomity is probably the most important criterion separating Darwinism from ID as such. For example, if you create a genetically engineered strain of wheat in a lab, it has been derived from Intelligent Design (obviously) instead of Darwinist evolution, since it didn't originate from a random mutation. Someone used a bit of intelligence to design a specialized strain of wheat.

  "Darwinism" as a pejorative term? That's news to me. Personally, I think it's a perfectly legitimate model to explain certain phenomena... it just doesn't explain everything, nor does it do it perfectly.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  As I've mentioned before, many people use Darwinism not as a scientific theory, but a religious one. It is a counter argument to the idea of a personal God who is manipulating the forces of nature on a case by case basis.

  Well, arguing theology and the nature of God, whether He is active as a personal manipulator of nature, or is willing to let nature run on its own... that's fine for Sunday school or for a bible college.

  But elevating Darwinism to the stature of a religious truth, a principle that is supreme in nature in the way that a God was thought to be supreme... that is not science. It certainly does not belong in a secular school system, supported by taxes from people of many different opinions.

  If Darwinism were taught as a science, it would be taught as a theory, not as a fact... a theory that was a partial explanation of only some natural phenomena, a theory that had reasonable alternatives, and a theory that has only a limited effect on the natural world.

  Those three characteristics are true of every other theory man has devised... they should be true of the Darwinian theory as well. And I'm happy that the State of Texas is intending to teach it just that way.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;SG, you are still talking about "Darwinism." If that is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are wrong in your claims. It merely means that what you criticize is something you didn't understand to begin with.

  In fact, Evolution doesn't have to lead to new species at all to be Evolution.

  And changes are not random, they are part of many changes and happens to be the ones best adapted to the environment.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

  The last time I checked, a random mutation was, well, random. Something happens to the critter's DNA and the critter is a little bit different. Maybe it was a stray cosmic ray that mixed up the DNA chain, maybe it was just a copying error when the DNA copied itself. But it happens at random.

  And no, a random mutation is usually not well adapted to the environment. In almost all cases it kills the organism. Random changes that survive the environment are two of the three elements of Darwinism. Does it create a new species? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

  While all of this plays a part in biology, it is an ideal theory that may or may not have much of an effect in practice. Keeping in mind the limitations and shortcomings of any scientific theory is just good common sense as well as good science.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  By the way, Jason Rice, if you want to explain how the iPod designed and built itself without the benefit of human engineers, I'll be glad to listen.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<there "shipped"="" (flubs,="" after="" an="" and="" argument.="" as="" begin="" bought="" cd="" circuit="" code,="" codified="" decades="" design="" development="" discreet="" ditching="" don't="" errors="" even="" fact="" fiascoes)="" finite="" fires="" hours="" in="" into="" ipod="" is="" join="" legacy="" lines="" of="" only="" opensource,="" private="" process="" product="" public,="" research.="" right="" sample="" samples.="" scope="" snapshots="" space.="" teeny="" that="" the="" thousands="" to="" trials="" two="" unarchived="" went="" were="" with="" years="" you="" your="">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

  That's a perfect example of how Intelligent Design functions. A bunch of engineers using creativity to intelligently design something. There were no tiny sequences of intermediate steps and no random mutations, the intermediate steps between prototypes were thoughtful and creative on the part of the engineers. Also, the development required the simultaneous development of several elements which an intelligent agent had to coordinate.

  I worked at TI with engineers who were developing the DLP projector chip. The development process had no relationship with the Darwinian model of development...</there>

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  I'd think that an iPod certainly qualifies as a "feature of the universe". If you don't think it's a feature of this universe, then which one?

  I'm interested in the way things come into being, and that definitely allows for anything which did not exist at one time but does exist now.

  But if you want a biological example, then lets talk about rabbits in Australia. The place has zillions of them. But how did they come to be there? Darwinism or Intelligent Design? In this case it was ID. Some transplanted Brit felt unhappy without them, so he had a few shipped from Old Blighty and set them loose on his farm. So we have an excellent example of an intelligent agent (the farmer) following a design (plan to transplant them).

  This does not mean that all the Australian animals were migrated over... some may have evolved via Darwinism... but some obviously did not.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Here's a question for you. We have 2 models of development, Darwinism and Intelligent Design. When Apple developed the iPod, which of the 2 development models best explains the iPod development cycle... Darwinism or ID?

  I'd say that ID is the better explanation. There was no transition from a portable CD player to an iPod that involved many small steps, and there was no random sequence of changes.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  I hope everyone realizes that the idea of an intelligent designer being responsible for something in the phenomenal world we analyze does not imply anything divine or supernatural. Planet earth has billions of intelligent designers.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  To the best of my knowledge, Darwinism has the following 3 elements:

  1. The evolution from one species to another takes place in very small steps

  2. Changes to an organism that lead to a new species are random rather than directed or pre-programmed

  3. The long-term survival of a species is governed by its selection and eventual fit in an environment

  I'd say that, yes, Intelligent Design is not an empirical science as such, any more than statistics or mathematics is an empirical science. It is more of a concept and an analytic technique. To extend my example, analyzing a beaver dam in order to determine if it was natural as opposed to artificial would be done by proper application of the ID discipline.

  Its pronouncements are definitely falsifiable, however. If it pronounced something as Darwinian and it later turned out to be artificial, it would be faulty.

  The concepts of ID and of Darwinism are not mutually exclusive. The phenomenal world could contain both examples of development.

• 1 year ago
  scienceguy's comment on:

  Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

  Since the purpose of science, or at least a strong part of its mission, is to identify ideas that are based on illusion and ignorance... do you really want to mix science and religion?

Previous  | 1 of 2 |