Table Of Content
We mammals instead have to breathe in and out through the same passage, and the result is that we always have a residue of used air in the farthest corners of our lungs. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time.
TEACHING ID IN THE PUBLIC-SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSROOM
Professor Sætre points out that the ancestors of modern day rays—like the manta ray—went through a similar evolution. They increased their survival rates by becoming flat and easier to hide, but they did not lie down sideways as the ancestral flatfish. Instead, they settled straight down on the seafloor and started flattening themselves while keeping the original symmetry. The starting point for evolution is that the "machinery" that copies the DNA in our cells does not work flawlessly, so mutations occur all the time. Most of the mutations are disadvantageous, and they are weeded out when the individuals carrying them fail in the fight to survive and reproduce. However, some of the mutations are either neutral or beneficial, and these will give rise to a genetic variation that evolution can work on.
In Debate on Intelligent Design, Critic Cites Dragon Legend to Justify Evolution's Failures - Discovery Institute
In Debate on Intelligent Design, Critic Cites Dragon Legend to Justify Evolution's Failures.
Posted: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 07:00:00 GMT [source]
ID makes its living on what it takes to be deficiencies, incompletions, or gaps in existing science.
In the same way that a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker, so goes the argument, the extreme complexity of the universe proves the existence of its Maker. Some issues that are irrelevant to Behe’s claim have, unfortunately, occupied the attention of many of those involved in the ID debate. It does not matter whether ID is or is not science; it does not matter whether ID is or is not creationism; it does not matter whether or not ID should be taught in the public schools. The only question that is important is whether or not the claim of ID is correct.
Section 5: Summarizing the Evidence
The “prime mover proof” for the existence of God is thus refuted. He could not imagine any possible physical explanation for the IC of the living cell. Had Behe lived in the ancient world, he might have referred to this supernatural being as the “god of the cell.” However, in the twentieth century, such terminology is unbecoming.
It's something that they don't like that might get a foothold in science itself. The Talmud relates to this question by saying that divine providence is bestowed in a manner that is “hidden from the eye” (samooe min ha’ayin).16 In other words, the framework in which God interacts with the physical world is within the laws of nature. Divine intervention rarely involves overtly supernatural events. Phlogiston theory is not a “different point of view” to explain the rusting of metals, to which “the student should be exposed to give him a liberal education.” Phlogiston theory is wrong!
Beyond science
Why do certain religious groups continue to have problems with Evolution? One factor is the low quality of science education in our schools that makes it difficult to have informed discussion in which all parties adequately understand the methods and aims of science. Also, we noted earlier the perception that Evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, which, for Christian fundamentalism, violates biblical authority. But the factor that requires attention here is that some people—both Christian and non-Christian—see Evolution as implying that there is no God, as being a form of atheism. So, Evolution becomes identified with the view that matter alone is real, chance and randomness eliminate design and purpose, moral absolutes do not exist, and a human being is merely a complex animal with no special dignity.
The $1 million in legal fees that the local school board must now pay as a result of the judgment may discourage other school boards from becoming embroiled in the issue. Check with your child’s science teacher to find out where evolution first in the curriculum and how it is taught. Check your child’s science textbook to see how evolution is described. “Anti-evolution legislation may be proposed in at least 10 states this year and there could be more,” says Spath. She advices parents to be aware when citizens’ committees are set up to monitor science standards and feels that it is more appropriate for scientists and science teachers to be the ones providing oversight. This, I think, may bear great fruit in the future in our culture.
Misleading Semantics of Creationism
I don’t think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be a scientifically useful explanation. Our new results, based on computer modelling, link evolutionary processes to the principles of learning and intelligent problem solving – without involving any higher powers. This suggests that, although evolution may have started off blind, with a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter.
What’s all the fuss about? Evolution, intelligent design and science education
The flaw in the ID argument is that it treats natural causes and supernatural action as incompatible, such that the explanation of some selected phenomenon must always be one type of cause or the other. The intelligent design (ID) movement promotes the idea that many aspects of life are too complex to have evolved without the intervention of a supernatural being — the intelligent designer. Promoters of intelligent design generally accept that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution has occurred, but maintain that, in many cases, especially with regard to the origin of complex characteristics or new taxa, the work of an intelligent designer, not an evolutionary process, is responsible. Backers of intelligent design frequently misrepresent or disregard aspects of evolutionary theory, the results of evolutionary research, and the nature of science in order to promote their agenda and sway public opinion against evolutionary biology. Many Creationists argue that evolution is a “theory” and not fact and so should be taught as such. Creationism also criticizes the idea of “common descent” – the theory that creatures with similarities in their genes must have evolved from a common ancestor -- by arguing that such similarities suggest that the creatures shared a common designer, aka God.
Since intelligent design makes claims based on the existence, characteristics, and powers of a supernatural being — and since science focuses exclusively on the natural world and the natural forces that operate within it, intelligent design is not science. Further, the ID movement has failed to generate any productive research program meeting scientific standards. Because of the movement’s history, proponents, and substance, many interpret it as an attempt to insert another version of creationism into science classrooms.
This is an example of what is called the “God of the gaps.” When some phenomenon seems completely inexplicable, one says, “Aha! It must be God Who is causing this phenomenon.” The problem with this approach is that the “completely inexplicable” phenomenon (“gap” in our knowledge) invariably becomes explained as science progresses. As each “gap” in scientific knowledge closes, God is forced to retreat to the next “completely inexplicable” phenomenon. “God of the gaps” arguments thus place God in continual retreat before the relentless advance of science. Surely, this is not the path of a believing person in the search for the Almighty.
It did not occur to the scholastic philosopher to count a woman’s teeth. Everything could be determined by reason, logic and thought. Any conceivable evidence that could be gathered for a theory other than Intelligent Design could be claimed to be evidence for Intelligent Design as well, by just claiming that "for reasons unknown to us, the designer chose to design it that way". Likewise, any evidence against Intelligent Design could likewise be dismissed with a similar claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment