UC Berkeley vs God

[ThePhoenix]

He is the founder of the intelligent design movement- the group that is giving evolutionists the most difficulty and rocking their secure little boat...

Yeah, I'm sure. Why do biologists (ok, 99.85% if them) look like they're happy and warm, and creationists look like they're standing on the Titanic as the deck starts to tilt shouting "This boat is unsinkable!"

 

[brewmama]

Hmm, I thought the point of the OP was that Berkeley felt the need to put out that website to arm the evolutionists.

 

[brewmama]

The only reason he's rocking anyone's boat is because it's people like him that try to push their **** into schools.

What does that mean exactly? Do you have a problem with having evolution taught as an unproven theory that has some problems as opposed to something engraved in stone? If so, why?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Hmm, I thought the point of the OP was that Berkeley felt the need to put out that website to arm the evolutionists.

I have no idea why Berkeley put up the website. I do however have a decent idea of which direction the wind is blowing. You say evolution is sinking: then why is there a thread in the S,C&E forum where no one has come up for good evidence for intelligent design? Not 6000 year old earth, not adam and eve, but simply intelligent design (which in its weakest form simply says God nudged evolution on occasionally?) Why was a young earth disproved with the technology of the 19th century, and why, in 200 years, has no one ever refuted that? Why has evolution, in its 150 years of existance shown a remarkable ability to predict everything from common features to genetic codes? Whe have the mechanism (mutation and genetic drift), we have the evidence that the mechanism works (fossil record, viral "scars" on the genetic code, similar features across species) and we have not found any evidence that it does not work that way.

 

[ThePhoenix]

What does that mean exactly? Do you have a problem with having evolution taught as an unproven theory that has some problems as opposed to something engraved in stone? If so, why?

Yes actually. Evolution should not be taught as "our best hypothesis." It should be taught as the accepted theory, and the best theory, in terms of both predictive powers and resistance to falsification that we have developed. Various evolutionary mechanisms: gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. should be treated as unproven theories, because thats what they are.

 

[brewmama]

I have no idea why Berkeley put up the website. I do however have a decent idea of which direction the wind is blowing. You say evolution is sinking: then why is there a thread in the S,C&E forum where no one has come up for good evidence for intelligent design? Not 6000 year old earth, not adam and eve, but simply intelligent design (which in its weakest form simply says God nudged evolution on occasionally?) Why was a young earth disproved with the technology of the 19th century, and why, in 200 years, has no one ever refuted that? Why has evolution, in its 150 years of existance shown a remarkable ability to predict everything from common features to genetic codes? Whe have the mechanism (mutation and genetic drift), we have the evidence that the mechanism works (fossil record, viral "scars" on the genetic code, similar features across species) and we have not found any evidence that it does not work that way.

I'm not familiar with the thread, I'll have to check it out. I have read that there is suggestive evidence for ID, at least to continue exploring it as a possibility. And I do know that things put forth as "evidence" for the mechanisms do not adequately explain or prove anything. It can be twisted to
possibly fit a suggestion, but in no way prove it. I know I am not qualified to argue these concepts adequately on my own, and I think that goes for many on this forum, but there are certainly folks in the scientific realm that are, and they are consistently marching forward in their studies, analysis, and arguments. They are certainly rocking the boat, and one obvious result is the absolutely vitriolic fervor with which they are being attacked by the materialistic status quo establishment. Their arguments are often not even addressed head on, instead they are maligned and impugned.

 

[Dracil]

Psh, I've been to Phillip Johnson's lecture before (I'm a UC Berkeley student). Just the regular PRATT list stuff. Rocking the boat? About as much as if a group of alchemists started to lobby to teach alchemy in place or alongside chemistry.

That and the sheer idiocy of saying UC Berkeley is against God. I mean, there's only like 20 or so Christian fellowships on campus, and that there's nothing against God in evolution anyway.

 

[brewmama]

Yes actually. Evolution should not be taught as "our best hypothesis." It should be taught as the accepted theory, and the best theory, in terms of both predictive powers and resistance to falsification that we have developed. Various evolutionary mechanisms: gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. should be treated as unproven theories, because thats what they are.

I don't think that's appropriate at public school level. Without going into the various nuances of upper level discourse, evolution should be presented as having some schools of disagreement. There certainly is no timidity in presenting Christianity, capitalism and American history in this manner.

 

[brewmama]

Psh, I've been to Phillip Johnson's lecture before (I'm a UC Berkeley student). Just the regular PRATT list stuff. Rocking the boat? About as much as if a group of alchemists started to lobby to teach alchemy in place or alongside chemistry.

That and the sheer idiocy of saying UC Berkeley is against God. I mean, there's only like 20 or so Christian fellowships on campus, and that there's nothing against God in evolution anyway.

What is PRATT?

Your scorn is duly noted, and reminds me of attacks against Semmelweis, Galileo, and other pioneers of scince. Time will tell.

 

[Dracil]

Except the scorn was directed at people were actually pioneers of science, like Darwin. The crop of people like Phillip Johnson, Behe, etc. are actually part of an odd counter-movement to turn back scientific progress. As I said, it's like trying to go back to alchemy or astrology (or that Flat-Earth Society). Doesn't matter if you try to reform it (like with Intelligent Design), it's still obsolete.

PRATT = points refuted a thousand times. You really haven't heard it being used around here? (Finds 194 results for PRATT, 13 within this month)

BTW, any other Berkeley locals going to watch the comedian, Kent Hovind, on Friday? It's either this, or I can go hear about the Catholic experience at IVCF (a campus fellowship), or go out with my friends to a karaoke contest.

 

[Bushido216]

What does that mean exactly? Do you have a problem with having evolution taught as an unproven theory that has some problems as opposed to something engraved in stone? If so, why?

It shouldn't be "engraved in stone", but unless someone can come up with a testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis that can stand next to evolution, I don't want it taught.

And, BTW, in scientific lingo, a theory is an explaination put forth to explain facts. Evolution is a fact, its method is the theory. Claiming "IT'S JUST A THEORY!" won't invalidate it.

 

[Bushido216]

I'm not familiar with the thread, I'll have to check it out. I have read that there is suggestive evidence for ID, at least to continue exploring it as a possibility. And I do know that things put forth as "evidence" for the mechanisms do not adequately explain or prove anything. It can be twisted to
possibly fit a suggestion, but in no way prove it. I know I am not qualified to argue these concepts adequately on my own, and I think that goes for many on this forum, but there are certainly folks in the scientific realm that are, and they are consistently marching forward in their studies, analysis, and arguments. They are certainly rocking the boat, and one obvious result is the absolutely vitriolic fervor with which they are being attacked by the materialistic status quo establishment. Their arguments are often not even addressed head on, instead they are maligned and impugned.

You made two statements.

a.) You don't know enough about these fields to argue them definitively.
b.) You know that anti-evolution fields are "marching on".

If you don't know enough about those fields, how can you judge the validity of their work?

 

[Bushido216]

I don't think that's appropriate at public school level. Without going into the various nuances of upper level discourse, evolution should be presented as having some schools of disagreement. There certainly is no timidity in presenting Christianity, capitalism and American history in this manner.

What do Christianity, capitalism, and American history have to do with evolution, exactly?

And those schools of disagreement should not be discussed at lower levels of education because those students will not know enough to dissect the non-science from the actual science.

My AP Bio lesson on evolution was horribly basic. HORRIBLY. I don't think I learned anything in that class that I didn't already know on the subject. Do you really think wasting time on dissenting opinions that have no merit is a good addition to the course?

 

[Bushido216]

Except the scorn was directed at people were actually pioneers of science, like Darwin. The crop of people like Phillip Johnson, Behe, etc. are actually part of an odd counter-movement to turn back scientific progress. As I said, it's like trying to go back to alchemy or astrology (or that Flat-Earth Society). Doesn't matter if you try to reform it (like with Intelligent Design), it's still obsolete.

PRATT = points refuted a thousand times. You really haven't heard it being used around here? (Finds 194 results for PRATT, 13 within this month)

BTW, any other Berkeley locals going to watch the comedian, Kent Hovind, on Friday? It's either this, or I can go hear about the Catholic experience at IVCF (a campus fellowship), or go out with my friends to a karaoke contest.

I'd do the karaoke thing. Kent Hovind would frustrate me and the Catholic thing would bore me.

 

[rkonfire]

It shouldn't be "engraved in stone", but unless someone can come up with a testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis that can stand next to evolution, I don't want it taught.

And, BTW, in scientific lingo, a theory is an explaination put forth to explain facts. Evolution is a fact, its method is the theory. Claiming "IT'S JUST A THEORY!" won't invalidate it.

Depends which type of "evolution" we're talking about here. Micro evolution is a fact, Macro is not. No one has seen or can prove that a monkey produced anything but a monkey. Or that a bird produced anything but a bird. Macro evolution simply does not work. Micro evolution (better referred to as variations) is provable because we witness changes within the different kinds. Like I said, it depends what you mean by "evolution." To me it seems like you're saying macro evolution is a fact, which is untrue, so clarify for me if I'm off the mark on your analysis.

By the way, why does Hovind make you so mad? I mean, you have to at least hear/learn about the other explanations to find out if they "...stand next to evolution,..." You said you want a "testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis that can stand next to evolution," and he will give you one. If you don't feel that's true, you can ask him questions to show him how wrong he is and report back to us what you've come up with. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go, at least. I think that would be a great conversation starter around here!

 

[ThePhoenix]

Depends which type of "evolution" we're talking about here. Micro evolution is a fact, Macro is not. No one has seen or can prove that a monkey produced anything but a monkey. Or that a bird produced anything but a bird. Macro evolution simply does not work. Micro evolution (better referred to as variations) is provable because we witness changes within the different kinds. Like I said, it depends what you mean by "evolution." To me it seems like you're saying macro evolution is a fact, which is untrue, so clarify for me if I'm off the mark on your analysis.

Unless you think God dislikes pantyhose so much that he intervened to create a strand of bacteria to eat them, we have some very current examples of macroevolution. Viral scars and ring species are two other examples of proofs of macroevolution

By the way, why does Hovind make you so mad? I mean, you have to at least hear/learn about the other explanations to find out if they "...stand next to evolution,..." You said you want a "testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis that can stand next to evolution," and he will give you one. If you don't feel that's true, you can ask him questions to show him how wrong he is and report back to us what you've come up with. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go, at least. I think that would be a great conversation starter around here!

We're talking about Mr. Magical Rock Apes here. Lets choose some wonderful quotes from Dr. Dino.

The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light.[Emphasis added, italics original]

Source: http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_part2.html [December 2003]

The evolutionists have just really hyperactive imagination, I think they need Ritalin or something. But they are able to imagine all sorts of things, you know, the Earth has slowly cooled down. You do have to wonder why there would be an ice age if we are still cooling down, then global warming.

Source: Truth Radio 23 July 2003 @ 29:00

Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]



Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.

Source: Truth Radio 5 August 2003 @ 37:50

I think it would be difficult to prove that vaccines have cured any diseases. I think you will find that cleaning up sanitation laws, inspection of cattle and stuff like that, getting rid of diseased creatures and diseased crops is really what has done the job. Now there may be a coincidence they happened at the same time. Like when they started, you know, vaccinating for one thing and at the same time had better sanitation laws and inspections. It may look like the vaccine cured the disease when actually something else cured the disease.

Source: Truth Radio 27 October 2003 @ 48:35

We see a red shift from quite a few of the stars. That is interpreted to be the star is moving away. It may be true, I don't know. It could be the star is moving sideways. I don't think you can tell the angle of the stars movement - or even if the star is moving from the red shift.

Source: Truth Radio 4 November 2003 @ 36:00

Another problem is, if you are going to use red shift, for instance, as an example of telling the distance to a star. Because we see the light, the red in the spectrum, shifted away from the other colors, does not prove it travelled great distances or that the star is great distance away. [emphasis added]

Source: Debate 9 - Hovind v Bartelt @ 1:13:10

I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other.

Source: Part 1---The Age of the Earth Video @ 0:57:45 [June 2003]

Einstein's theory was that the speed of light is a constant. Time is the variable. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe time is the constant and light is the variable.
Source: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0601.pdf

And, yes, life is made of ninety two basic elements .....
Source: Hovind/Pigliucci Debate www.infidelguy.com [May 2002]

Modern man could not build the great pyramid [sic] today. BTW the great pyramid [sic] does not have to be post flood. It could be a structure that went through the [Biblical] flood.

Source: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=31 [December 2002]

I can provide more of these gems if you want. He knows nothing about science. His degrees are rubbish.

 

[billwald]

"they don't treat YEC as a scientific theory. They treat it as pure religion. "

You gots to start with the definition of "science." <G>

 

[notto]

Depends which type of "evolution" we're talking about here. Micro evolution is a fact, Macro is not. No one has seen or can prove that a monkey produced anything but a monkey. Or that a bird produced anything but a bird. Macro evolution simply does not work. Micro evolution (better referred to as variations) is provable because we witness changes within the different kinds. Like I said, it depends what you mean by "evolution." To me it seems like you're saying macro evolution is a fact, which is untrue, so clarify for me if I'm off the mark on your analysis.

The theory of evolution does not say that a monkey will ever produce anything but a slightly modified monkey. You seem to be using a strawman version of 'macro' evolution.

The mechanisms for macro evolution and micro evolution are exactly the same, they work, and macro evolution (speciation) has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Macro evolution IS a fact. The theory of evolution explains speciation by using observed mechanisms in its description.

The term 'kinds' has no scientific definition. Unless you can give one, 'within kinds' has no testable or predictive definition and has no scientific value.

 

[mythbuster]

Unless you think God dislikes pantyhose so much that he intervened to create a strand of bacteria to eat them, we have some very current examples of macroevolution. Viral scars and ring species are two other examples of proofs of macroevolution...

Quote edited by MOI.

Phoenix,

Just how does that proof go?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Quote edited by MOI.

Phoenix,

Just how does that proof go?

Ring species are species which both two populations can interbreed with a middle populat, but the far ends of the "ring" cannot interbreed with eachother, i.e. species A can breed with population B, and population C can interbreed with population B, but A cannot interbreed with C. What has happened is the species on the far end are too genetically different to breed with eachother. Creationism has never explained this phenomina.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

Viral scars are scars specific to a group of species, but not others. They were caused by viruses in the past that left their mark on an entire species, which has since evolved into new ones.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10469592&dopt=Abstract

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639&highlight=Virus