Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[tumbleweed41]

Apparent design is ID. When a scientist sees something that has an apparent design, such as the eye, the conclusion should be the best explanation which is, apparent design is design.

"Apparent" is no objective empirical evidence.

Once again, show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Relation is assumed.

Backed by genetic evidence.

What evidence for ID?

 

[lunakilo]

I didn't say all data is faked, I said historically evoluton has the faked data on its side. The data of today for evolution is mostly not faked, it is interpreted to conclude evolution when it could just as easily be interpreted as design.

Ok, so not all data is fake.

can you give me an idea of which data is not fake then?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All this is is ape and man fossils put side by side.

Actually the Main Skeleton and the darkened skeleton in the picture along side the human skeleton are the same species. It isn't an ape skeleton (NOT AT ALL). I suspected you didn't know what it was and I was correct. You simply labeled it (Ape).

Even if it was "Ape" it would ruin your rant considering we can clearly see the morphological similarities in these two species.

The definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil, not one that shows any ancestor/descendant relationship. In other words, presuppose evolution then find ape fossils and say that is proof.

Not only are you wrong but morphology is not even the only criteria for ancestry. We know for a fact that we (human primates) as well as (non-human primates) are related on a genetic level.

This is why ID should not be taught in schools, let alone at the college level. ID has no benchmarks. You start off with the presupposition that life was created fully formed but have no way to test this hypothesis.

 

[Skwim]

Because ID is strictly a religious concept, and the bill only applies to those doing research in ID, I assume this would only be applicable to those faculty and students who are in a religious studies department, and not any other department. I assume.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem here is that it would be nice to just dismiss the ideas Man of Faith espouses as not worthy of attention because of their absurdity, but this bill is evidence that those absurd ideas are starting to cause real problems.

 

[David M]

You might have even have seen this in your school books because I heard it was still in there.

Oh look, falsified data from the creationists.

School books use micrographs (photos) of embryos as the basis of their illustrations these days. And they did so when I was at school decades ago.

 

[doppelganger]

What does this bill mean? Does it mean that all a professor has to do in announce his/her intention to do research into creationism and they are automatically tenured? Does it mean that Texas universities are legally required to fund research into I.D.?

Is it a good thing for the government to set academic policies for universities?

And what does it mean for other subcultures that want to misleadingly hold out religious beliefs as products of the scientific method? Does this create an Equal Protection problem the first time a Scientologist gets turned down for a tenure track position in the Psychology department of a state uni because he has made it clear that he intends to teach psychology students about the role of body thetans in causing psychological disorders?

 

[Jose Fly]

"The measure from Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler would prohibit public institutions of higher education from discriminating against or penalizing faculty members or students, in regard to employment or academic support, based on their "conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms."

Um....has that been a problem in Texas? Professors actually doing research into ID creationism and getting fired over it?

Or is this like the anti-Sharia law in neighboring Oklahoma, in that it attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[Jose Fly]

Good post. I would like to remind people that the falsifying of data is historically on the evolution side.

Are you serious? Pick any web article from a creationist site...any one you want...and I guarantee you it'll contain more falsifications that have occurred in the history of evolutionary biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

All this is is ape and man fossils put side by side. The definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil, not one that shows any ancestor/descendant relationship. In other words, presuppose evolution then find ape fossils and say that is proof.

If I'm ever on trial for murder, I want a jury of MoF's.

"We the jury, find the defendant not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence that consisted of nothing but a bullet hole in a person's head, a weapon that they claimed matched the bullet, the defendant's fingerprints on the weapon, and DNA evidence. But all that is is a hole, a gun, and genetic data that could be interpreted any number of ways. Since I did not personally see it happen, I cannot conclude that it did."

Yay!!! :takeabow:

 

[Magic Man]

And what does it mean for other subcultures that want to misleadingly hold out religious beliefs as products of the scientific method? Does this create an Equal Protection problem the first time a Scientologist gets turned down for a tenure track position in the Psychology department of a state uni because he has made it clear that he intends to teach psychology students about the role of body thetans in causing psychological disorders?

That's a very good point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Man from monkey is not empiracle science, but antidotal.

But it does make predictions that intermediate critters would exist in the fossil record.
This has been borne out by findings.
What testable predictions does ID make?

 

[Valjean]

I'm still trying to figure out what form ID research would take. What is there to research?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still trying to figure out what form ID research would take. What is there to research?

I suppose they could look for examples of irreducible complexity, & make a probabilistic argument against evolution.

 

[camanintx]

I would support the teaching of Darwinian evolution as an alternative to ID, side by side.

Wouldn't there have to be a theory behind ID before it can be taught along side evolution?

This shows the failure of evolution science to adequately defeat ID in the lab, by needing the courts to block it.

Wouldn't ID have to be studied in the lab before it could be defeated there?

Apparent design is ID. When a scientist sees something that has an apparent design, such as the eye, the conclusion should be the best explanation which is, apparent design is design.

So you think the best explanation for the following is that someone intended to make a mountain look like an indian wearing an ipod?

 

[camanintx]

I suppose they could look for examples of irreducible complexity, & make a probabilistic argument against evolution.

I think they've already tried that.

The Flagellum Unspun

 

[Tristesse]

+1. The actual man from something other than man is not observable and empiracle science.

Pluto orbiting the sun has not been observed, therefore not science, right?

 

[Tristesse]

Apparent design is ID. When a scientist sees something that has an apparent design, such as the eye, the conclusion should be the best explanation which is, apparent design is design.

If the eye is designed, it's poorly designed. And either the creator is incompetent or he just doesn't care enough about his creation.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm still trying to figure out what form ID research would take. What is there to research?

To be fair, ID creationists do conduct research. It's just that, as Behe was forced to admit in the Dover trial, their research is into evolution, not ID creationism.

Basically, they've been trying to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms can't do one thing or another, usually by arbitrarily limiting the number of tools evolution has at its disposal and then setting the bar extremely high. And at times (e.g. Behe and Snoke's paper) it turns out evolution is still up to the task.

Oh, and more recently ID creationists have been trying to argue against computer simulations of evolution. But research that can actually be called "research into ID"? None.