Re: What goes around comes around

At 10:57 PM 10/9/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>janice matchett wrote:
>
>>At 02:37 PM 10/8/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>
>>>Cornelius Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>>Preston:
>>>>These results are predicated on the assumption that evolution is true.
>>>>Of course there is nothing wrong with this (Kuhn calls it "normal
>>>>science"), but we need to be careful in using the results outside of
>>>>normal science; that is, as evidence for evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seems that you are still struggling with this concept. Internal
>>>consistency based on a well supported assumption is hjardly wrong. What
>>>do you mean by "applying this outside of 'normal science'" and see this
>>>as evidence for evolution.
>>>
>>>And you are still confused about your claim that there are significant
>>>problems for common descent. Repeating your wishes does not make them
>>>come true however.
>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Of course ID still has no
>>>scientifc explanations. ~ Cheers [Pim]
>>
>>
>>### Interesting what's being taught to young, impressionable minds under
>>the guise of "science" (biology) in the classroom here. Intellectually
>>honest people can readily see the direction into which the young people
>>are being led - at tax-payer expense.
>When you have something to contribute which has some foundation in
>reality, please do so, until then, please don't embarass yourself with
>this nonsense.
>If you want to contribute to the discussion such as by showing the there
>are 'significant problems' with common descent or perhaps if you really
>want to surprise us with a scientific explanation relevant to ID, please do so.
>
>But I doubt it.
>In Christ.

#2#2# As an apparent expert on what constitutes embarassing nonsense, you
snipped out what the school teaches that
you say has "no foundation in reality". I wouldn't say it has "no"
foundation, but I would say it has "little" foundation.

The snipped philosophy being taught as biology:

"...It is almost as though biology consists of two very different sciences,
a reductionist science that seeks to emulate chemistry or physics (113),
and a much more philosophical science that is interested as much in the
subtleties of history as it is in rigors of the more exact physical
sciences (114). This is not to say that we will not be learning real
science in Biology 114, but instead that the general approach of learning
that we will employ in Biology 114 will be different from that of Biology
113. In Biology 113, basically, you sought to understand how a cell works.
Here we will deal with such squishy topics as why it is the cells that we
observe exist at all. .."

"Darwinian thinking is not confined to biology; it anchors a naturalistic
understanding of all complex order, even including our own intelligence.
Hence today, Darwinism is central to a thoroughly naturalistic picture of
the world."

Ultimately, if we go back far enough in time, all living (i.e.,
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/#extant_populations>extant)
species may be collapsed into a single,
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#the_universal_ancestor>universal
ancestral species (which in all likelihood was a
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl27.htm>bacterium)

"Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot.
Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations
and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given
the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is
billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated.

But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling
explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.

Evidence [not the same as "proof"] for macroevolution, or common ancestry
and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study.
These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative
developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and
anatomy and the fossil record." (<http://earth.ics.uci.edu/>Talk.Origins)]

(19) Extant populations
(a) Evolutionary change is easily observed in extant
(i.e., currently existing)
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/WINDOWSDesktopMy%20BriefcaseCurrentTEACHINGLECTURES114%20lecturescampbl23.htm#population>populations
as changes in
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl13.htm#genotype>genotypes
that occur over time
(b) The hard part is attributing that change to
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/#natural_selection>natural
selection
(c) Your text examines one such attempt on pp. 437-438
(Campbell & Reece, 2002)

[snip]

(Anonymous, Iconoclast of the Century. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Time
December 31, 1999, p. 186)
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl22.htm>“Darwinism
remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated.
There is hardly an element of humanity – not capitalism, not gender
relations, certainly not biology – that can be fully understood without its
help."

<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl22.htm>http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl22.htm

Janice
Received on Sun Oct 9 23:16:17 2005