Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[Valjean]

The creation or ID tree of life wouldn't be a tree, but an orchard where the original created beings were created whole in different categories and then they started evolving from there.

By magic poofing?
What is the mechanism of magic poofing? and where is your evidence?

 

[Skwim]

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.

.

Yesterday, having paged through several creationists sites---I was bored---I ran into just this thinking. Several of the sites had no trouble stating right up front their rational for attacking evolution. First they claim there are only two options for explaining the diversity of life. 1)it was created as is by a supernatural being, and 2) it evolved. Because they can't prove #1 to be true, they go after #2. So an ID researcher would no doubt frame his goal using a null hypothesis to show evolution to be false, and thereby letting the default answer, #1, surface as the truth. The questionable aspect here is why any reputable university or college would grant anyone the time and money for a project whose goal is nothing more than to let a lack of evidence (showing evolution to be false) suggest an undemonstrable, untestable, alternative (a sky daddy). It would be like initiating a project to show that all the forces that operate to keep our planet in orbit are false just to prove that it's turtles all the way down. Wanna get payed for such a project? then take it to a religious institution that believes in turtles all the way down.

Universities and colleges have no obligation to back or fund any particular project, and are within there rights to refuse employment to anyone who would use their payed time and university resources for it, including its promotion among students.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just what kind of research are we talking about here? Whats the methodology? Is it actually a real serious study with an established method M of O, or simply a form of veiled proselytizing using religion in some manner simply to establish a point supporting ID no matter what science brings to the table?

The article doesn't address this. Just the sediment involved over the issues in bringing about this bill.

 

[Man of Faith]

By magic poofing?
What is the mechanism of magic poofing? and where is your evidence?

The evidence is, with out using the presupposition of evolution, there are no known or verifiable ancestors of life forms in the fossil record. We see whole, complicated life forms bursting on the scene with no previous fossil record in the cambrian explosion and some of them are still alive today with no evidence of evolution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dawkins said that he could imagine aliens designing life on earth. If he can imagine that, as a biologist then biology teachers should be able to also. Common descent is imagination as well.

Dawkins' opinion is not science nor does it follow the scientific method so biologist should not be allowed to teach their opinions...This is why we don't allow you to teach your religious opinion in schools. It does not follow the scientific method.

As far as (Common Decent) you haven't shown us what it is specifically that you disagree with. Do you not agree that you can gather all the members of your family (both on your mother and your father's side) and trace your genealogy all the way back to the oldest living relative?

Case in point....(decent with modification)

 

[Man of Faith]

Dawkins' opinion is not science nor does it follow the scientific method so biologist should not be allowed to teach their opinions...This is why we don't allow you to teach your religious opinion in schools. It does not follow the scientific method.

As far as (Common Decent) you haven't shown us what it is specifically that you disagree with. Do you not agree that you can gather all the members of your family (both on your mother and your father's side) and trace your genealogy all the way back to the oldest living relative?

Case in point....(decent with modification)

Decent with modification is fine and observable, but not common descent, that is imagination.

 

[Tristesse]

Apparent design. If you found an electric motor on the ground you would see an apparent design, same thing for the eye, or ear, or brain.

No, it's not the same thing. MoF, I'm positive that this has been brought to your attention numerous times, yet you keep posting the same argument. The reason that you know the electric motor is designed, has nothing to do with complexity etc... The reason is because you already know that it's designed. You have no evidence that motors reproduce naturally, and the reproducing naturally is the key here. Humans, trees etc.. occur naturally. You are making a category error. Stop doing that.

 

[Man of Faith]

By magic poofing?
What is the mechanism of magic poofing? and where is your evidence?

We can let let the scientists come up with the scientific theories of original creation.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, it's not the same thing. MoF, I'm positive that this has been brought to your attention numerous times, yet you keep posting the same argument. The reason that you know the electric motor is designed, has nothing to do with complexity etc... The reason is because you already know that it's designed. You have no evidence that motors reproduce naturally, and the reproducing naturally is the key here. Humans, trees etc.. occur naturally. You are making a category error. Stop doing that.

We don't know that the first human or trees occured naturally. That is speculation and doesn't follow the scientific method.

 

[Tristesse]

We don't know that the first human or trees occured naturally. That is speculation and doesn't follow the scientific method.

It does. Because humans and trees as they are today, reproduce naturally. You have to provide evidence that would suggest that they started differently. Because the observation in this scenerio is that humans and trees are naturally producing organisms.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Decent with modification is fine and observable, but not common descent, that is imagination.

So what you're telling me is the two species below are completely unrelated...and I will not be able to link the two genetically....????

Remember, the dark colored skeletal system is not and ape....

 

[Skwim]

We don't know that the first human or trees occured naturally. That is speculation and doesn't follow the scientific method.

There was no "first" human or trees, that's purely creationist lingo. Humans and trees evolved slowly, evolving from forms that didn't resemble humans and trees.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are we arguing that ID should be taught or that Creationism should be taught? By now there is a slight difference. Creationism seems to be biblical based with a multitude of interpretations (OEC and YEC and everything in between).

ID, to me , is creation in disguise. ID says the designer can be "God", gods and even aliens. So, MoF are we simply taking about creationism or ID?

 

[Man of Faith]

So what you're telling me is the two species below are completely unrelated...and I will not be able to link the two genetically....????

Remember, the dark colored skeletal system is not and ape....

All humans, if those skeletons are humans, are related to the very first two humans. I have no problem with that. However ID says that humans aren't related to any other creature other than humans.

 

[Man of Faith]

Are we arguing that ID should be taught or that Creationism should be taught? By now there is a slight difference. Creationism seems to be biblical based with a multitude of interpretations (OEC and YEC and everything in between).

ID, to me , is creation in disguise. ID says the designer can be "God", gods and even aliens. So, MoF are we simply taking about creationism or ID?

It doesn't matter to me. :angel2:

 

[Man of Faith]

There was no "first" human or trees, that's purely creationist lingo. Humans and trees evolved slowly, evolving from forms that didn't resemble humans and trees to those that now do.

ID says there were, why not follow the science where it leads?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All humans, if those skeletons are humans, are related to the very first two humans. I have no problem with that. However ID says that humans aren't related to any other creature other than humans.

And how long ago, do you believe, the supposed "first two" humans lived....?

 

[no-body]

ID says there were, why not follow the science where it leads?

What science? Just say God did it all and be done with it.

 

[Skwim]

ID says there were, why not follow the science where it leads?

You think creationism, whether it hides behind the "ID" label or not, is science? Come, come, you must know better than that.

 

[Revoltingest]

The scientific method is a pretty objective & well described process. So far, I just haven't seen a compelling
argument that evolution isn't subject to it, nor that ID hasn't been subjected to it, nor is this even possible
(other than the so-far-fruitless irreducible complexity probability line of thought).