Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[mark kennedy]

Uh, what? Do you not know what that sentence says? RNA COMBINES the properties of an enzyme and information carrier. I can only assume that you don't know that even in modern cells, ribosomes are made of two different segments of RNA. That is, RNA can function like DNA as a template for genes AND make up the enzymes which react to the gene to produce protein.

That's called recapitulation, RNA arising prebiotically is problematic to put it mildly:

(i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically;
(ii) RNA is inherently unstable;
(iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and
(iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. (Biodirect 2012)
​

The protein enzyme complexes that synthesize other proteins are of course themselves synthesized on the ribosome.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's called recapitulation, RNA arising prebiotically is problematic to put it mildly:

(i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically;​

No, because it readily forms in abiogenesis experiments. "Complex" molecules form in nature all the time, it's a matter of if the reactions to form the compound are energetically and chemically favorable, not complexity. RNA and DNA consist of 5 different elements, all of which are very common, so that isn't a limiting factor either.

(ii) RNA is inherently unstable;

Less stable than DNA for sure, which is why protocells experience far more drastic mutations. However, it's obvious that this doesn't prevent it from being a viable genetic material, as there are plenty of viruses that make it work.

(iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and
(iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. (Biodirect 2012)

You seem to be referencing a source... but why didn't you link it? Also, I know for a fact that reason 4 is wrong, because there are plenty of enzymes in modern cells that are RNA based. They aren't as numerous as protein based enzymes, but something that is very notable about RNA enzymes is that they usually have functions related to DNA and RNA replication.

As for catalysis being a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only, I have to ask, relative to what? After all, ribosomes aren't all that big. Additionally, proteins can also form quite easily outside of cells, so it is not impossible that the ancestor of all life on this planet arose from a protocell that happened to get an RNA polymerase molecule in it (or some less efficient precursor), given that this enzyme does all the work required to replicate RNA by itself.
​

The protein enzyme complexes that synthesize other proteins are of course themselves synthesized on the ribosome.

Which is made of two subunits of RNA and isn't made of protein.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, because it readily forms in abiogenesis experiments. "Complex" molecules form in nature all the time, it's a matter of if the reactions to form the compound are energetically and chemically favorable, not complexity. RNA and DNA consist of 5 different elements, all of which are very common, so that isn't a limiting factor either.​

RNA is an extremely complex molecule, with four different nitrogen-containing heterocycles hanging off a backbone of alternating phosphate and D-ribose groups joined by 3′,5′ linkages. Although there are a number of problems with its prebiotic synthesis, there are a few indications that these may not be insurmountable. (Biol Direct, 2012)

Less stable than DNA for sure, which is why protocells experience far more drastic mutations. However, it's obvious that this doesn't prevent it from being a viable genetic material, as there are plenty of viruses that make it work.

Viruses come from living systems ultimately, there is no indication that they arise from prebiotic elements.

You seem to be referencing a source... but why didn't you link it?

(The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the others. Biol Direct, 2012)

Also, I know for a fact that reason 4 is wrong, because there are plenty of enzymes in modern cells that are RNA based. They aren't as numerous as protein based enzymes, but something that is very notable about RNA enzymes is that they usually have functions related to DNA and RNA replication.

Although the most efficient of these ribozymes catalyze the reaction at a comparable rate to protein enzymes – and in vitro selection has isolated ribozymes with a far wider range of catalytic abilities – the estimate of proteins being one million times fitter than RNA as catalysts seems reasonable, presumably due to proteins being composed of 22 chemically rather different amino acids as opposed to the 4 very similar nucleotides of RNA.

As for catalysis being a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only, I have to ask, relative to what? After all, ribosomes aren't all that big. Additionally, proteins can also form quite easily outside of cells, so it is not impossible that the ancestor of all life on this planet arose from a protocell that happened to get an RNA polymerase molecule in it (or some less efficient precursor), given that this enzyme does all the work required to replicate RNA by itself. (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the others. Biol Direct, 2012)
​

Which is made of two subunits of RNA and isn't made of protein

The question is simple and complex at the same time, which came first the protein or the RNA. RNA is attractive because of it's simplicity, but the protein has a million times more catalytic capability, with certain limitations. One thing is sure, the assumed event in evolutionary history has never been duplicated in a lab.

 

[PsychoSarah]

RNA is an extremely complex molecule, with four different nitrogen-containing heterocycles hanging off a backbone of alternating phosphate and D-ribose groups joined by 3′,5′ linkages. Although there are a number of problems with its prebiotic synthesis, there are a few indications that these may not be insurmountable. (Biol Direct, 2012)

Ok, so this person brings some criticisms to the table about the RNA world hypothesis, but also admits that the problems they have are not insurmountable.... so, what's the issue? Also, I am sorry to say that out of every published article I have read, this one has got to have the most misleading abstract of them all. I do not understand why this wasn't edited. I'd recommend reading the content under the Conclusions section.

Viruses come from living systems ultimately, there is no indication that they arise from prebiotic elements.
(The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the others. Biol Direct, 2012)

I wouldn't say viruses necessarily come from living systems. It's possible the first virus was just RNA that ended up inside a protocell, then replicated itself uncontrollably until it burst, rinse and repeat.

Although the most efficient of these ribozymes catalyze the reaction at a comparable rate to protein enzymes – and in vitro selection has isolated ribozymes with a far wider range of catalytic abilities – the estimate of proteins being one million times fitter than RNA as catalysts seems reasonable, presumably due to proteins being composed of 22 chemically rather different amino acids as opposed to the 4 very similar nucleotides of RNA.

Now that I actually get to read your source, did you know it actually provides more evidence that long RNA sequences AREN'T necessary? "However, the discovery of a number of extremely short ribozymes suggests that long sequences – and hence the huge numbers of RNA molecules required to sample the necessary sequence space – might not have been necessary. In a section titled ‘Miniribozymes: small is beautiful, Landweber and colleagues [31] discuss a number of such small ribozymes, including a minimal size active duplex of only 7 nucleotides that self-cleaves. Regarding the relatively modest rate enhancement of this miniribozyme – three orders of magnitude less than the parent ribozyme from which it is derived – the authors conclude: “the smallest molecules are likely to arise first, and any rate enhancement would have been beneficial in a prebiotic setting”" That's just a small portion of the evidence that this source gives that long RNA is not necessary for it to have catalytic properties. As in, it gives better evidence for that than I ever could have, since I was entirely unaware that less than 10 nucleotides was necessary for a functional ribozyme.

I think the title of your source tricked you into thinking it supported your position, because the actual source outlines many of the major criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis... and then provides a ton of evidence AGAINST those criticisms.

​

The question is simple and complex at the same time, which came first the protein or the RNA. RNA is attractive because of it's simplicity, but the protein has a million times more catalytic capability, with certain limitations. One thing is sure, the assumed event in evolutionary history has never been duplicated in a lab.

Actually, based on results from abiogenesis experiments, I'd say proteins first, but not by a lot, given that amino acids form before nucleic acids do in those experiments. RNA and functional proteins have formed in these experiments, but I think the nature of the experiments themselves would make it difficult to tell which one became more prominent in function first. After all, they are left to run for some time independently without any portions of their contents being removed.

I don't think "which came first" is necessarily the right question to be asking to begin with. Rather, what we should be asking is "which contributed more to the formation of life at the start".

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, so this person brings some criticisms to the table about the RNA world hypothesis, but also admits that the problems they have are not insurmountable.... so, what's the issue? Also, I am sorry to say that out of every published article I have read, this one has got to have the most misleading abstract of them all. I do not understand why this wasn't edited. I'd recommend reading the content under the Conclusions section.

Of course I've read the discussion. They appear to favor the proteins first model but no one has ever duplicated this assumed process in a lab.

I wouldn't say viruses necessarily come from living systems.

I would.

It's possible the first virus was just RNA that ended up inside a protocell, then replicated itself uncontrollably until it burst, rinse and repeat.

Now that I actually get to read your source, did you know it actually provides more evidence that long RNA sequences AREN'T necessary? "However, the discovery of a number of extremely short ribozymes suggests that long sequences – and hence the huge numbers of RNA molecules required to sample the necessary sequence space – might not have been necessary. In a section titled ‘Miniribozymes: small is beautiful, Landweber and colleagues [31] discuss a number of such small ribozymes, including a minimal size active duplex of only 7 nucleotides that self-cleaves. Regarding the relatively modest rate enhancement of this miniribozyme – three orders of magnitude less than the parent ribozyme from which it is derived – the authors conclude: “the smallest molecules are likely to arise first, and any rate enhancement would have been beneficial in a prebiotic setting”" That's just a small portion of the evidence that this source gives that long RNA is not necessary for it to have catalytic properties. As in, it gives better evidence for that than I ever could have, since I was entirely unaware that less than 10 nucleotides was necessary for a functional ribozyme.

I think the title of your source tricked you into thinking it supported your position, because the actual source outlines many of the major criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis... and then provides a ton of evidence AGAINST those criticisms.​

I wasn't looking for this article, I was actually looking for articles on the environment of the RNA world. You get a 10 nucleotide ribozyme outside a cell and it has zero chance of survival in the prebiotic world. It was a very comprehensive and candid paper, enjoyed it very much. It was candid about the possibilities and difficulties, at least one peer review called the RNA world theory a popular fantasy. It was kind of interesting to see that in the scientific literature. I concur. You imagine this protocell that is made from proteins, with no viable cause.

Actually, based on results from abiogenesis experiments, I'd say proteins first, but not by a lot, given that amino acids form before nucleic acids do in those experiments. RNA and functional proteins have formed in these experiments, but I think the nature of the experiments themselves would make it difficult to tell which one became more prominent in function first. After all, they are left to run for some time independently without any portions of their contents being removed.

Fine, just perform an experiment where the proteins spontaneously generate and some how manage to create an RNA sequence that can reproduce it. If you do, you will be the first.

I don't think "which came first" is necessarily the right question to be asking to begin with. Rather, what we should be asking is "which contributed more to the formation of life at the start".

Either the proteins or RNA would have had to come first, but you need both for life to start.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course I've read the discussion. They appear to favor the proteins first model but no one has ever duplicated this assumed process in a lab.

Proteins definitely form in abiogenesis experiments. That even happened in the Miller-Urey experiment, and they were working with a much less accurate model of the conditions of the ancient Earth. Out of all the important organic molecules in cells, proteins seem to form the most readily and in the widest range of conditions.

I would.

You aren't alone in that view, and I acknowledge the reasons why people have it, but consider also that there are infectious agents much simpler than viruses that can form in the environment. Prions, for example, not only do this, but they are incredibly stable. If protocells can form, why not protoviruses? That's my 2 cents on that.

I wasn't looking for this article, I was actually looking for articles on the environment of the RNA world. You get a 10 nucleotide ribozyme outside a cell and it has zero chance of survival in the prebiotic world.

That's why it is important that lipid bubbles form in the same environment that those ribozymes do, and would encapsulate some of those ribozymes as they form around them.

I recommend just searching "the environment on Earth when life formed" to get better search results for that Physical conditions on the early Earth

It was a very comprehensive and candid paper, enjoyed it very much. It was candid about the possibilities and difficulties, at least one peer review called the RNA world theory a popular fantasy. It was kind of interesting to see that in the scientific literature. I concur. You imagine this protocell that is made from proteins, with no viable cause.

Actually, I view the protocells as fat bubbles that trap a portion of the solution in the environment within them as they form. They divide as they slowly have more environmental solution go into them than leaves (a property of their fat structure), and when they become a size that is no longer stable, they essentially slowly pop in a way that causes them to divide into two smaller fat bubbles. The formation of these fat bubbles is a matter of basic phospholipid chemistry in an aqueous solution; that is, you can just put a layer of these phospholipids in a bottle of water in a rough way, or make the water sufficiently disturbed, and they form, since part of the phospholipid is attracted to water and the other end is repelled by it. This is also basically what cell membranes are, but with the addition of proteins (with similar properties of being partially attracted and repelled by water) stuck in the membrane. Weird to think of cell membranes as being a liquid, right?

Fine, just perform an experiment where the proteins spontaneously generate and some how manage to create an RNA sequence that can reproduce it. If you do, you will be the first.

Or RNA that reproduces itself as well as some proteins along with it, can't exclude that possibility. I'd love to run an abiogenesis experiment myself, just like how I am setting up a decade long evolution experiment with Triops, but abiogenesis experiments are more difficult and expensive to perform. Heck, you set them up incorrectly and they can explode (a consequence of there being heated gases and sparks to imitate lightning). I'd need to utilize some supplies from the college chemistry department, and supervision from a professor when constructing the set-up so I don't accidentally make a bomb. I'll see what I can do, but I'm not giving any guarantees on this one.

I mean, I can't make this set up in my house, it's huge and my grandmother would not stand for me leaving the water running.

Either the proteins or RNA would have had to come first, but you need both for life to start.

I see no reason why they couldn't form one at a time, and life formed once both were present.

 

[PlayingForTheLord]

If you think about it, the creationist/ID side in the Dover trial never stood a chance.

The prevailing view in science is that there's nothing beyond the physical universe, so anything that does not conform to that worldview is automatically considered non-valid, or worse, nonsense. I suspect the trial was merely a formality.

I hope ID scientists continue to publish their findings independent of the scientific establishment, which is far from unbiased with its pressure to publish only what conforms to its dogma, lest one suffers ridicule, censure, and even dismissal.

 

[Speedwell]

If you think about it, the creationist/ID side in the Dover trial never stood a chance.

The prevailing view in science is that there's nothing beyond the physical universe, so anything that does not conform to that worldview is automatically considered non-valid, or worse, nonsense. I suspect the trial was merely a formality.

I hope ID scientists continue to publish their findings independent of the scientific establishment, which is far from unbiased with its pressure to publish only what conforms to its dogma, lest one suffers ridicule, censure, and even dismissal.

You are confusing the methodological naturalism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. The difference is this: Science is limited by its epistemological strategy to studying only material reality. It takes no position, one way or the other, on the supernatural. Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, asserts that material reality is all that exists.

The problem with ID is not that it tries to demostrate the possible existence of a supernatural "designer" using the methodological naturalism of science, but that it is blatantly bad science. Christians should avoid using it for apologetic purposes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you think about it, the creationist/ID side in the Dover trial never stood a chance.

The prevailing view in science is that there's nothing beyond the physical universe, so anything that does not conform to that worldview is automatically considered non-valid, or worse, nonsense. I suspect the trial was merely a formality.

I hope ID scientists continue to publish their findings independent of the scientific establishment, which is far from unbiased with its pressure to publish only what conforms to its dogma, lest one suffers ridicule, censure, and even dismissal.

Do you not find it very telling that many prominent ID supporters refused to defend it under oath in court?

 

[KWCrazy]

Not insurmountable: The Origin of Life

So now you not only need mystical benevolent mutations but magical benevolent meteorites??
This is the junk you pretend is science???

I suggest familiarizing yourself with origins of life research.

I can only take so much humor.

Nobody thinks that the first life would have had complex strings of DNA.

Please list for me the life forms which do not have complex DNA.
You aren't promoting science, you're promoting fantasy. It isn't even good science fiction.

If you want to deny all of science...

ALL of science?
Stop lying.
All of science does NOT depend on the theory of evolution.

First, senses lie.

So do the unsaved when they try to pretend that God doesn't exist and that encounters with the supernatural are all delusions.

Like the pool balls. Do ghosts and demons really fancy a game of billiards?

No, but I believe the law of inertia. Objects at rest stay at rest until another force is applied. When there is no source for that other external source, we can generally rule out that they decided to move themselves.

Second, lack of explanation for something is not the same thing as something being supernatural.

When there is no natural explanation for something which occurs, what is the logical conclusion?

It's case where the evidence points to one thing

Exactly. The universe could not originate without a creator.
Life could not begin without a creator.
Science cannot explain the origination of anything.

If God really wanted to warn me, they'd send someone more convincing than you.

God provides the information. It's up to you to accept or reject it. The consequence of either is yours alone.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you not find it very telling that many prominent ID supporters refused to defend it under oath in court?

ID scientists did in fact defend it in court but the question before the court was never whether or not ID was true or false. The question was whether or not teaching ID in a science class was a violation of the establishment clause. The court found that the designer must be God and therefore it was religious. That's all there every was to it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He demanded that God be proven to him through scientific means. That seems like an implication of the belief that science has the ultimate authority, which is not an universal truth.

Or, a recognition that science is currently the best we can do to gain accurate answers to questions about reality.

According to what criteria?

The criteria of getting demonstrably accurate answers to question.
The criteria of being able to use that knowledge and apply it, like for example to build that device you are currently using to read this post and send data to the other side of the world at light speed.

I shouldn't have to explain how our modern technological society has been build on the back of the scientific method.

We have answers about our existence in The Bible

No, you have claims there.

The fact that you dismiss them as untrue because you don't accept divinely-inspired written accounts as proof is not grounds for stating that science has been the most successful method to get answers.

Excep that it is.
"biblical knowledge" didn't teach us about how germs cause desease. In fact... back when the "biblical knowledge" was the only "knowledge", sick people were given exorcism instead of medicine.

Does science tell us how the world was created? Not clearly. Just a bunch of theories that scientists contradict each other about. The Bible tells us clearly
The bible makes a bunch of assertions which, when held up against reality, crumble like a house of cards during a breeze. Does science tell us how the world is going to end? Nope. The Bible does in Revelation. Does science tell us what our purpose is? Nope. The Bible does. Well, would you look at all these fundamental things that sciences doesn't tell us...

The bible just asserts. And its assertions simply don't match up to reality.
The bible claims to have the answers before even asking the questions.

Science doesn't just assert. Science explains.
And it does so, AFTER asking the question, gathering data, building explanations and then testing those explanations.

The bible doesn't explain anything.

Science has been known to constantly contradict, correct and improve itself. Scientific facts that were considered the norm in the past have been proven wrong by science.

Yes, it's called learning and making progress.

According to what criteria? According to whose opinion? The scientists?

No. According to the track record of succes.

When you build an airplane using explanations of reality that came about through the scientific methodology, it will fly.
If you don't, you won't even be able to start the engine. You wouldn't even know where to begin to start building the engine.

There are monks and priests out there who will tell you that the best we can do is pray.

And they will be wrong.

Take new desease X.
Let's put 100 scientists in a lab and 100 priests/monks in a church.
The 100 scientists will search for a cure while the monks will pray for one.

I'll guarantee you that if a cure is found - it's the scientists that will find it.
And you know it too.

There were saints out there who performed miracles and said that he best we can do is draw near to God. How do you prove that either one of these sides is right?

I just gave you an example.

Have 100 scientists try and figure out a problem using the scientific method and have 100 monks pray for a solution. Then see who will make progress and who won't.

It is a mistake to think that the scientific method is the only valid means of investigating or understanding reality.

I invite you to provide me with an alternative method that actually works at least as good.

Of course, it is the only valid means of scientifically investigating and scientifically understanding the physical world.

What is the difference?

But that does not, in itself, demonstrate that reality is limited to physical reality,

Did I say that was the case?

or that all investigation is limited to empirical investigation in accordance with the scientific method.

What other type of investigation is there, concerning things about reality?

How about pointing out its track record of constantly making errors that it later corrected?

Ironic.
That's actually what the succes of science is.
It's called making progress.

Wouldn't that be grounds for considering it untrustworthy?

No.
Planes fly.
Meds cure.
PC's boot.
Science: it works.

Well, you're going to have to disagree with many scientists on that one. I'm just paraphrasing what they wrote: Unguided evolution - RationalWiki

That's "unguided" in the personal sense.
In the sense that there is a "personal entity" literally deciding the direction of evolution.

That's off course not the case.
It is however "guided" in the impersonal sense, through natural selection.
Natural selection isn't a "personal entity" like a god or whatever, that has intent and intelligence and what not.

Natural Selection is more like a conceptual "filter".
It "guides" evolution in terms of circumstantial parameters towards becoming better at survival and reproduction.

Is that so? Wouldn't it be logical for the continued reliability on producing fulfilled prophecies of The Bible to consider it trustworthy?

100prophecies.org

No.

None of these "prophesies" are impressive or even convincing.
You can find such things in all religions. And in plenty of quackery "fortune tellers".

 

[tas8831]

If you think about it, the creationist/ID side in the Dover trial never stood a chance.

The prevailing view in science is that there's nothing beyond the physical universe, so anything that does not conform to that worldview is automatically considered non-valid, or worse, nonsense. I suspect the trial was merely a formality.

I hope ID scientists continue to publish their findings independent of the scientific establishment, which is far from unbiased with its pressure to publish only what conforms to its dogma, lest one suffers ridicule, censure, and even dismissal.

Since you believe that ID/creation scientists produce such good ID/creation science, how about presenting an example and discussing its merits?

 

[tas8831]

So now you not only need mystical benevolent mutations but magical benevolent meteorites??
This is the junk you pretend is science???

I can only take so much humor.

Please list for me the life forms which do not have complex DNA.
You aren't promoting science, you're promoting fantasy. It isn't even good science fiction.

ALL of science?
Stop lying.
All of science does NOT depend on the theory of evolution.

So do the unsaved when they try to pretend that God doesn't exist and that encounters with the supernatural are all delusions.

No, but I believe the law of inertia. Objects at rest stay at rest until another force is applied. When there is no source for that other external source, we can generally rule out that they decided to move themselves.

When there is no natural explanation for something which occurs, what is the logical conclusion?

Exactly. The universe could not originate without a creator.
Life could not begin without a creator.
Science cannot explain the origination of anything.

God provides the information. It's up to you to accept or reject it. The consequence of either is yours alone.

Lego man?

 

[pitabread]

So now you not only need mystical benevolent mutations but magical benevolent meteorites??
This is the junk you pretend is science???

The Earth isn't isolated from the rest of the solar system. Surely you know that.

Please list for me the life forms which do not have complex DNA.
You aren't promoting science, you're promoting fantasy. It isn't even good science fiction.

Depends on the definition of 'life' TBH. Viruses for example don't have DNA, yet have many of the hallmarks of living things.

ALL of science?
Stop lying.
All of science does NOT depend on the theory of evolution.

It depends on what beliefs you subscribe to. If you are a YEC, then you really are rejecting findings in every branch of science.

For example, geology and cosmology based on underlying physics inform us about the age of our planet (~4.5 billion years). Paleontology informs us of the last ~4 billion years of life forms on our planet, and specifically that life forms existed in the past that didn't today (and vise-versa). And the theory of evolution offers an explanation as to how that life changed over our planet's history.

So do the unsaved when they try to pretend that God doesn't exist and that encounters with the supernatural are all delusions.

A meaningless rebuttal. Ultimately, it comes down to a preponderance of evidence. I've long held the view that if creationists demanded the same standard of evidence for the supernatural that they do for things like evolution or the origin of life, they'd be atheists in a heartbeat.

When there is no natural explanation for something which occurs, what is the logical conclusion?

The logical conclusion is that we don't have an explanation. That's it.

If you want to make the leap to suggesting some other type of force at work, then you need to do much more to demonstrate that. You need to define it, quantify it, measure it, test it, and so on.

Simply saying, "... and therefore ghosts" doesn't get us anywhere.

Exactly. The universe could not originate without a creator.
Life could not begin without a creator.

These are just baseless assertions. If you want to demonstrate this, you need to do a lot more work.

God provides the information. It's up to you to accept or reject it. The consequence of either is yours alone.

Except God isn't providing any information. People are.

At the end of the day, I can only be honest with myself about what I believe. I can't force myself to believe in something that I honestly don't believe to be true. And everything I've researched into religious beliefs, every church I've been to, every theist I've spoken with, have convinced me that at this point religion is a human social construct, nothing more.

And especially so when people like you come along and start prattling on about future judgement, punishment, etc. It reeks of coercion which quite frankly, I find a bit disgusting as an evangelical tool.

If there really is a supernatural deity that desires my worship, obedience or whatever, they're not going to send you to give me that message.

 

[tas8831]

ID scientists did in fact defend it in court but the question before the court was never whether or not ID was true or false.

The ID side actually asked the judge to decide whether ID was science or not. When they did not get the answer they wanted, they cried foul.

The question was whether or not teaching ID in a science class was a violation of the establishment clause. The court found that the designer must be God and therefore it was religious. That's all there every was to it.

Well that and things like Behe argreeing that under a definition of science that allowed ID, astrology would also count. and that Behe declared there was no research on the evolution of the immune system, and upon being presented with a stack of papers and books on that very subject, without even looking at them declared that they did not have what we wanted, etc.

And the Christians on the school board were out and out accused of lying by the judge.

It was a disaster for the ID creationists and also exposed a rather evil and hateful side of many 'Christians' in this country, with people like Schlafly claiming that the judge should have done what conservatives wanted because Bush appointed him, and the fact that he got so many death threats (as did the parents that brought the case).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Depends on the definition of 'life' TBH. Viruses for example don't have DNA, yet have many of the hallmarks of living things.

Gotta correct you on this bit.
1. There are viruses which use DNA as their genetic material.
2. Viruses lack the capacity to reproduce themselves independently. They have to hijack a living cell to do it. They also don't have a metabolism. However, they are more considered a grey area in terms of whether or not they should be considered alive, with both camps having good points on justifying either classification.

 

[Ophiolite]

A meaningless rebuttal. Ultimately, it comes down to a preponderance of evidence. I've long held the view that if creationists demanded the same standard of evidence for the supernatural that they do for things like evolution or the origin of life, they'd be atheists in a heartbeat.

Excellent point. You should add it to your signature. I've voted the containing post "Winner" on this quote alone.

I can become quite depressed reading some of the "arguments" in these threads, then I read a line or two like this and I remember that only some of the world's inhabitants are crazy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Excellent point. You should add it to your signature. I've voted the containing post "Winner" on this quote alone.

I can become quite depressed reading some of the "arguments" in these threads, then I read a line or two like this and I remember that only some of the world's inhabitants are crazy.

That standard isn't the inductive approach to an exploration of natural phenomenon. The naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism and the origin of life is metaphysics, it is prior to evidence and in spite of it. It's an a priori worldview with the epistemology being secondary to a materialistic worldview.