Bachmann Suggests Intelligent Design Is a 'Scientific Fact'
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says schools should teach children about evolution and intelligent design because "the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table."
During a question-and-answer session at the University of Northern Iowa Wednesday, Bachmann was asked if intelligent design should be taught as science in public schools.
"I think that all science should be on the table," the candidate explained. "I think the one thing we do not want to have is censorship by government."
"I do believe that God created the Earth," she continued. "And I believe there are issues that need to be addressed -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record."
According to many scientists, all three issues Bachmann mentioned do not discount the theory of evolution.
Scientific American's Steve Mirsky wrote in 2005 that arguing irreducible complexity as evidence against evolution was a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."
While Charles Darwin cited a lack of fossil records as "the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory," University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne believes the objection is no longer valid.
"Since 1859, paleontologists have turned up Darwin's missing evidence: fossils in profusion, with many sequences showing evolutionary change," Coyne explained in a 2005 article.
And University of Minnesota, Morris associate professor PZ Myers says the claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution false is "one of the oldest canards in the creationists' book."
A student from Bancroft, Iowa, who identified himself as a Catholic, explained to Bachmann that there was big difference between a "theory" like intelligence design and a "scientific theory" like evolution.
"The idea of creationism by an intelligent designer is not scientific," he said. "It is pseudo-science. There is no hard evidence that says that God created Earth. There is nothing like that. Whereas, we have physicists, chemists, biologists, many other people in the science field that say this is how the Earth was created, this is how the universe was created. ... How can you say that creationism can be taught in a public school where this would actually increase the combining of church and state?"
"I think what you are advocating for is censorship on the part of government," Bachmann replied. "I want all facts on the table. ... Why would we forestall any particular theory? Because I don't think that evolutionists, by and large, say that evolution is a proven fact. They say that this is a theory as well as intelligent design."
"So I think intellectually, the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table and let students decide."
Get out Bachmann. Just get out.
Willful intellectual dishonesty like this gets to me like nothing else.
Willful, yes. Intellectual? Not in 1,000,000 years.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
- Albert Einstein
Willful stupidity. Like Palin and Cain, this woman's brain doesn't produce enough electricity to light a 4-watt bulb.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
It is important to differentiate. We intelligently design all sorts of life today. Dolly was intelligently designed. They're cooking up all sorts of new 'intelligently designed' viruses and bacteria in the Army's biological centers, aren't they? Heck, my sci-fi mind can even imagine us someday possibly intelligently designing creatures suited to environments unlike our own -- perhaps much colder, warmer, dryer, wetter.
At this point in the discussion, the phrase 'intelligent design' has a multitude of meanings -- biological and cosmological. And it isn't clear which one is being refused entry into the classrooms. Is it the view that says that human beings are capable of designing life, using protein folding models and such? Or is it the one that throws up the hands, and gives up by proclaiming "God did it!!"?
...in this context. It's basically an attempt to gussy up theistic creation myths in such a way as to make those theistic underpinnings less obvious. I guess you don't follow the news much. There has been significant litigation over it at the federal level, the most significant ruling having been in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. There is no reason whatsoever to muddy the waters by pretending it is impossible to know what is meant by the term "Intelligent Design."
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
I am formally trained in philosophy. The term 'Intelligent Design' is misleading, and doesn't properly fit the discussion. 'Intelligent Design of Life' is a human accomplishment. Go ask the farmers who buy the Monsanto grains, if you doubt that.
I also think it would be morally wrong to try to fool children into thinking that adults aren't tinkering with life, at the most minute levels.
So whatever your beef is with religion operating under the guise of science, you should ensure that you aren't overreacting. Don't throw the scientific baby out with the religious bathwater.
Go tell it to someone who gives a shit. I don't care what kind of training you've had, you're woefully lacking in common sense (and very likely are a troll) if you truly think that wingnuts' constant references to "Intelligent Design" are anything other than a codeword for "creationism."
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
I think that people like you might ignore real advances in Intelligent Design, because of your hatred of religion.
Hopefully, if we're attacked by a designed bio-weapon, you won't freak out when someone tells you it was "Intelligently Designed" -- and exactly the REASONS WHY they think it was designed, rather than the product of simple evolution.
. . . you are ignoring the common, everyday usage of the term "intelligent design," and hence both the proximate context in which it is being used in this article as well as the broader cultural context in which the term is commonly used. The rarified categories of formal philosophy are meaningless outside of formal philosophical discourse.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
Gotta go back to sleep. GNA.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Her line of reasoning is what gave birth to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in 2005: http://www.venganza.org/about/. As long as she wants "all scientific facts on the table.." and she considers creationism to be science, she should also advocate teaching kids about creation myths from all the "disciplines", including the FSM. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
...I have my Ramen Communion.
WWFSMD?
May pesto be upon you.
...blow my nose to the Great Green Arkleseizure.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
No wonder it's so cold today...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
And look what that gave us.
H/T to you kids who don't want to be like this biatch: Drop out/run away from homeskool, start smoking crack, get knocked up. Gotta be a better future than what too much Jeebus does to a teenage brain.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
He obviously didn't want it, because she's still here.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
everything Jesus told her to do...
It reminds me of a joke Dennis Miller once made. (Yes, he actually was funny once upon a time.) Talking about convicted Watergate felon Charles Colson's convenient prison conversion to fundamentalism, he imagined the reaction of Jesus to the news: "Oh shit, here comes that asshole Colson, trying to hand his life over to me. TAXI!!"
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
... because he had writers that actually knew how to write humor. Now that he's going it alone and swimming in an Olympic-sized swimming pool of wingnut Kool-Aid... not so much.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
There was nothing intelligent in her design from birth.
Don't you need to have something scientific before you can have "scientific fact"? Kinda like you have to have peanuts before you can have peanut butter.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Have you checked the ingredients on some of those jars of "peanut butter"? Not sure where the peanuts come in. Then again, I am allergic to peanuts. Oh well.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
As a regular reader of Pharyngula, I feel the need to point out that the good professor's name is spelt Myers, not Meyers.
He sent it back with a bucket-load of vomit.
Ignorance is parent to religion.
Religion is parent to Hate.
Remember Matthew Shepard:
http://vimeo.com/fuksnickityClam/matthew
`thanks.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
you know, :D
me-oww!
Please! She's never going to be the candidate. Why use resources here to even report this kind of bullshit, with everything else that needs our attention? You write this and post it, many people comment - to what end? Yes, GOP bad, Dems good, sort of, Bachmann stupid. Our guy is great!! Boring. Pointless.
...the hate fest.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
...a "hate fest"? If anyone here should be mad it's you(and don't give me your Ron Paul, libertarian bullshit).
Romney...fucking serial liar, career bullshit artist. You idiots hate him more than we do, lol.
Gingrich...another pathological liar...whore...for pussy and corporate cash.
Paul(your boy)....nutjob racist who spawned a male version of Lynn Cheney.
Cain....a discredited token minstrel Koch whore who clearly has a RAPIST like love for white pussy.
Bachmann...a lobotomized moron with a sissy husband.
Perry...makes Bush appear like Chomsky.
The others are so oblivious that they would have trouble getting a cab before my black butt in downtown Chicago.
Just flush the toilet and tell that nasty pig Christie to lose a couple of hundred for 2016.
I guess you and Milquetoast have some history.
Where the Hell have you been the last twenty years? Republicans NEVER HAVE MERCY ON PROGRESSIVES.
Furthermore, my expressions are more of pity. Like Miss Kitty(just below) I'm not laughing at this ridiculous lot, I'm LMMFBAO at them.
I'm laughing. This shit is hilarious. This gal has real chootspaw, ya know?
me-oww!
I'm sure that lots of people said the same thing when Baron Harkonnen first started spewing his bile over the radio. Look where ignoring that has gotten us. You can't afford to ignore evil, because evil thrives in the darkness.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
Hey, quit slandering the good and just name of Baron Harkonnen. At least he was honest about what he was. Mr. Limbaugh on the other hand wouldn't know honesty if it slapped him in the face. He might get off on it, but not know it.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
Dune Pop Quiz.
The sandworms of Arakis are the largest lifeform on the planet, attaining lengths in excess of a 1,000 feet. The entire surface of the planet is essentially a desert.
What did they eat?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Kinda like the 1,000 lb. gorilla...
Whatever the hell they wanted... who would argue? lol
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
Sand Plankton of course.
Freedom Isn't Free, So Stop Whining And Pay Your Taxes.
A bit hyperbolic where these types are concerned. Bachmann plainly is what she is and doesn't apologize for it, but for christ's sake, she's not Harkonnen. It's all very well documented in 24/7 cable world without the additional bullshit posts.
...gay. Maybe the bachmanns can pray it away.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
And my "Baron Harkonnen" crack was referring to Rush Limbaugh, not Bachmann. Perhaps you should try reading a little closer the next time you want to jump up on that know-it-all soapbox of yours.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
OK, we all know that Bachmann is ignorant and crazy. Problem is, there are people just as ignorant and crazy on school boards and town councils all over the US.
...!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
The depth of their ignorance is utterly amazing.
the dearth of their intelligence.
the dearth of their reasoning.
'Talk to the hand'
The woman is already naming VP's for her upcoming presidency, with 8% of the GOP supporting her.
She's straight up delusional.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
an mus' B repeel'd, Boo-RAH: http://wonkette.com/457377/michele-bachmann-n... http://news.yahoo.com/swedish-man-bursts-flam... http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/uk...
Michele's basically toast. OK, now what do we do about her scores-of-millions of heavily-armed crankhead disciples who want to feast upon our febrile brains, return America to theocratic, feudal, antebellum peonage and foreign corporate... ah, er... never mind; now such comments could get me interned indefinitely by the US Military courts for sedition?
When are we going to get the straight poop about Marcus and all them adopted kids? Fava beans, huh?
Aside from taxation based upon brain size, something else the Republican candidates promulgate as sciency fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identi...
And they didn't laugh this ignoramus off the stage?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
"I do believe that God created the Earth," she continued. "And I believe there are issues that need to be addressed -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record."
How long did she have to practice THAT sentence.
Geez god awmight...she's talking to STUDENTS. Not her nitwit constituents or small brained Tea Party types who will knee jerkedly react, "ooooh...big worrrrds. She sooooo smart!"
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
saying "fungible".
All the scientific facts? Like good sex education? Like the effectiveness of abstinence education versus education about birth control methods?
Facts about global warming? Facts about pollution and fracking and water quality?
Really, girl? All the facts? Remember now, real, actual facts are like kryptonite to your party...
Well, if you're going to cherrypick and narrowly define facts as being proven by experimentation or evidence, or by being reproducible, then I guess you have a point. But in Bachmanistan, facts are exactly what you say they are, well divorced from the reality based community. Everybody knows faith trumps truth.
Again, over and over, the Right misuses the term "theory". In the scientific world it does NOT mean an guess, as good as any other of 1000 guesses. A "theory" must stand up to testing over and over with new information and every angle of thought. I know the student brought up that there was a difference but to the millions of knuckle scrapers his point was just about who was making the guess. I think I was about 10 years old in the late 1950s when it hit me that every religion represents a small percentage of the population but claims to be the one and only and everyone who does not agree will be punished in this life and after. To truly believe your particular sect you cannot be tolerant of the others, therefore I reject them all.
You cannot fix stupid.
What is surprising is she actually was awarded a law degree. Which is supposed to mean that you can put forth a logical argument based on facts. I think the accreditation of the school she supposedly graduated from needs to be seriously re-examined.
If I remember right she went to LIBERTY University or the one that Oral Roberts runs unless it's the same one. I know it's one of the Evangelical Universities. Therefore her law degree is bogus.
does she think the earth is 6000 years old too, and that Jesus rode a dinosaur into Jerusalem?
me-oww!
There aren't enough bong hits in the world that could get me through one of her entire speeches.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I hear ya. Me neither.
me-oww!
This Bachmann bitch is crazy.... seriously, she's fucking Looney Tunes. The thing is, who is more stupid, her or the mouth-breathing trainables that voted her dumb fucking ass into office?
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" .. George Orwell
"And I believe there are issues that need to be addressed -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record."
-Michele Bachmann
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Your arguments are invalid. The Earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. It is constantly receiving energy from the sun.
Irreducible complexity:
When you take away features/parts from any modern biological structure in the reverse order that they were obtained, they do not cease to function. They may serve a different function, but they do not become useless. Take the modern human eye, for example. There are species that exist today that exhibit every step from simple light-sensitive cells to depressions lined with such cells, to eyes that resemble pinhole cameras, to the modern eyeball.
The dearth of fossil record:
What do you mean by 'dearth'?
The chance of an animal or plant becoming fossilized is very slight. Conditions must exist where the organism is quickly protected from decay, scavengers, weathering etc. so that mineralization could occur.
That said, there are probably a couple of hundred thousand individual species identified to date. As far as individual fossils are concerned, they number in the billions. Go into the back rooms of any decent natural history museum, any you'll find literally millions of fossils.
This YouTuber, all by her lonesome will totally destroy any and all of your geological Creationist arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WildwoodClaire1
Now please go away...
...and take your chubby hubby with you...
"the dearth of the fossil record"......aka, the god of the gaps.
'Talk to the hand'
I am willing to put all the science facts on the table and let students decide what they think about evolution the moment she advocates putting all the science facts on the table and letting the students decide whether they want to have sex and use contraception.
Students don't get to "decide" on the facts. They don't get to have an opinion on facts. Students don't get to decide is a math formula is the right one, or decide if the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. And they don't get to "decide" on their own scientific theory--which is the opposite of "opinion." Gawd I hate these people.
They do get to decide about whether they'll be legally bullied by choosing to be gay!
"Presidential Candidate"...BWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Michele Bachmann: U.S. Embassy In Iran (Which Doesn't Exist) Would Be Closed Under My Watch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/mich...
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
...I've posted this before, but here we go again...
When asked why ID shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, just ask how ID could possibly be falsified. Scientific theories are scientific because they can be falsified. This is how science works--we need to know how theories can be proven wrong rather than how we can be proven right because confirmatory evidence is not as supportive as contrary evidence is damning. So repeat after me:
How could Intelligent Design be falsified?
Anyone who can't answer that question is essentially conceding that ID is a product of ideology rather than science. For this reason, ID should NOT be taught in science classrooms, just as numerology should not be taught in algebra classrooms.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
"So I think intellectually, the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table and let students decide."
This is actually the last thing creationists want, because they don't actually have any facts on their side, just a sincerely held
beliefdelusion.More significant than being the first woman POTUS, should Missy grab the brass ring, she would be the first with a double-digit IQ!
"So I think intellectually, the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table and let students decide."
Now Ms. Bachmann, can you please provide the "scientific facts" supporting up the notion of intelligent design.
Freedom Isn't Free, So Stop Whining And Pay Your Taxes.
Seriously, how long would it take? "Okay, some people believe magical being(s) in the sky created the universe and all life." Any questions? Okay, let's move on."
Obviously, at least I hope, the Bible or other religious texts could not be used. Or if one were used it would seem ALL versions would have to be taught. I actually find the Hindu stories fascinating. They had MUCH more of an imagination. Mayans?
And, then, could those same teachers go to Bachmann's church and teach Darwin on Sunday?
Right...
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
It would just be a matter of inserting the phrase "on the other hand, some people believe God did it" after every assertion of a scientific fact or principle. After a while, students would just cease to hear it; in essence, it would become a fnord.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
The only scientific fact about Intelligent Design is that it is a load of hogwash. Calling it pseudo-science doesn't do it justice. More like pseudo-religion. Faith is not about proof and one's faith shouldn't be about currying favor with those whose stock and trade is skepticism and scientific rigor. As Christ said, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's," in this case, give the scientific community its due.
Ya'll can argue back and forth all you want to. I'm sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So there's Michele chatting away like somebody keeps pulling her string. It's over honey. You know it. We know
it. Marcus knows it. O-V-E-R.
"I think that all science should be on the table," the candidate explained... "I do believe that God created the Earth," she continued.
I believe you are a douche bag, and under your rules that's science, so let's put it on the table.
far left loon >.<
argument. It betrays a profound and wonderfully complete misunderstanding of that very law. Anti-evolutionist always seem to overlook the fact that their argument based on the Second Law not only makes evolution impossible, it makes life impossible. Quod erat dumdumstrandum.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/6110/i...
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
...Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 - Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania, the opinion for which can be read here. The opinion is 139 pages long, but is well worth the read. Bush appointee Judge John Jones tears the arguments of intelligent design proponents up one side and down the other!
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
Whenever conservatives bring this up, remind them that John Jones, a G.W.Bush appointee has already ruled that "intelligent design" is not science, but merely creationism in disguise.
He permanently barred the district school board from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
"on the table" when you don't believe in gravity?
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
Let only scientific facts and science be taught in science class, and leave that fictional story book about intelligent design stay home, under the bed, where it belongs to keep the bed from wobbling!
Most people who believe in intelligent design are by most standards, NOT intelligent by any measure. Michele is a prime example.
don't talk about thermodynamics. Or is that the first? Oh, well...
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
My first laugh off the day!
Janek
And we get daily measurements of it.
hurricanes are formed when poseidon evaporates too much water.
lightning is when zeus is mad.
when i fart evil spirits are escaping.
the first amendment will be destroyed if these theories are not taught to all school children.
that's funny, I don't see any intelligence in her design... especially the mistake of stuffing her cranial cavity with pig droppings instead of usual grey matter.
Their homeworld was a place called Earth, located in an uninteresting part of the galaxy. They had an expression: pride goeth before a fall. Their pride was their undoing. I know. I was there....They did not listen, of course. Arrogant men never do.
Bachmann doesn't know what science is, what a fact is and doesn't understand the scientific method at all.
It's scary that there are people out there who actually think she is mentally competent to run the USA.
"Intelligent" design should be taught, if at all, in religious institutions. Evolution belongs in educational institutions.
"You can have faith or you can have no faith at all and we respect each others beliefs."
No Michele, you do not respect others beliefs. That's why you've been ripping on Muslims and why atheists get shit on by every end of the spectrum. You do not respect others beliefs and never have.
scientological fact. Ok, I know better.
"When you're president -- as opposed the head of a private equity firm -- your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot." - President Barack Obama
Yes, I do believe "we don't fully understand this yet, therefore magic" is an accepted form of scientific study.
that the US close its embassy in Iran?
I might not have had to go to the Persian Gulf and watch our service men give their lives in vain.
"Irreducible Complexity."
"Dearth."
Being able to pronounce a word is not the same as understanding what it means.
"Scientific facts."
See what I mean?
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
Maybe she is right. I might even say evolution is very intelligent design.
Wow,if you ever wonder what obfuscation sounds like,spend the next 6:23 listening to Bachmann double down on teh stupid flowing freely from her gaping maw.
btw She never addressed the young mans question,which received more support from the audience than her first answer.
'Talk to the hand'
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get out of here." - Qui-Gon Jinn
A Humming birds wing has 7 distinct adaptations to allow it to hover, and fly backwards. If any one of those adaptations failed, the Humming Bird would have been flightless. How can all 7 adaptations have appeared in a single generation?
that the bible answers almost nothing.
The Old Testiment taught people how to protect themselves from germs. Thousands of years before we discovered germ theory. How to cleanse oneself after touching something dead, or unclean. Priests in Europe turned to the Bible after 1/4 to 1/3 of the population had died during the plagues. The Sciences of Astronomy, and Biology were started by reformist Christians, Hospitals, and Universities were also started by Christians. Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame to mention just a few.
never be explained.
Janek
Instead of asking how "7 adaptations have appeared in a single generation"--which besides being presumptuous (Who said it took only one generation?), it is something we can't directly observe--the correct question would be how we would DISPROVE the existence of such jumps. That is how science works. And if we can't think of a way to disprove our theory, then we are in the realm of psuedo-science.
But such "fast jumps" happen all the time. We know, for example, that immense evolutionary changes can happen in very short periods, which is why one flu shot is only good for one season (if that). Or think about domesticated dogs, which all have descended from wolves. We have everything from great danes to chihuahuas now, thanks to what Darwin called artificial selection (read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selec...). All evolution really suggests is that the world, in all its power, is doing the same thing to all species in the wild (i.e., natural selection).
You see, ID is nonscientific because the whole premise starts with an immeasurable explanation (God, or some other dissembodied "intelligence") and then works backwards to find what proponents take as confirmatory evidence (complexity of life). It is the confirmation bias writ large. And it can't be proven wrong. Which is why is should not be taught in science classrooms, but I think it would make perfect sense in a comparative religion or philosophy class.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
Leaf scorch bacterium, Xylella fastidiosa, is likely one such organism. Used to be responsible for a few diseases of rather specific plants and trees. Now it has jumped to many other species across quite a few families, wiping out, among others, millions of oaks, maples in the eastern US in recent years.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...of evolution. If you cannot understand what is written below you have no right to talk about Bachmann. Ask yourself why you believe so strongly in something you barely understand yourself? As an individual w/ a B.S. in Biochemistry, I can assure you that creationism makes far more sense than evolution at this current time. Maybe if they come up with an answer for the argument below they can become comparable explanations for the origin of life:
During the course of my education, I have found that it is nearly impossible to "disprove" evolution, at least with the information available to us right now. Decent with modification dictates that evolution is possible. Therefore even if the different species were created, it would seem as if evolution occurred and could still occur because of the very nature of DNA.
That being the case, one can still give many examples which explain how highly unlikely it is that evolution produced the diversity we see today. For instance, even though it is possible to get de novo genetic information from gene modification, the possibility that this produced every protein that exist today from a small pool of proteins present in the common ancestor (which is the assumption) is highly suspect.
Consider this: evolution can only work if there is selection. Selection in the macro world is very simple; the fit survive and pass on desirable traits. When we learned more about the micro world, we understood that phenotypes have a genetic basis. Thus variations in genes cause variations in phenotypes which leads to evolution right?
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which side you are on) it is not that simple. Mutations occur at the nucleotide level, thus changes in protein structure occur at the amino acid level. Sure there are a few instances (extremely few) in which a one amino acid difference confers improvement in function, but the vast majority of proteins would either lose function, or remain the same. Because selection occurs at the organism level, single amino acid changes in proteins cannot be selected for unless they confer enough improvements in function to be felt at the organism level. So steps in the "right" direction, random mutations in duplicated genes which would lead eventually lead to new protein synthesis, cannot be selected over steps in the wrong direction, random mutations in those same genes that work the opposite way.
On top of that, given the extremely complicated interactions between proteins, even if one organism was to "evolve" a new protein, it would not confer an improvement in fitness without the supporting proteins, and would also not be selected for and would be subject to "loss of function" mutations.
If the implication of this is not yet clear, you could consider the eye example where improvement in vision is the trait selected for and the transition from light-sensitive spots to eyepits is the step needed to take, it becomes immediately noticeable how improbable this would be. If you consider the thousands of protein modifications necessary to move from light-sensitive spots to eyepits, not to mention the number of regulatory modifications in promoter and regulatory regions of DNA which would allow the correct expression of these proteins, all of which would have to occur without selection until the process is complete (until the organism actually derives a benefit that improves fitness) it becomes very clear that this process alone would take tens of millions of years to occur.
Even with the most generous estimates of the earth's age, it is improbable that all of the diversity we see came about from this method. At least not without some supernatural involvement.
I won't go for the obvious joke... curious, though, where did you get your degree?
Also, your main argument seems to be there hasn't been enough time for such diversity to occur - yet evolution is not always slow. Darwin's finches demonstrated that selection can lead to relatively large changes within a couple of generations. Are you saying god, in his retirement, was hanging out in the Galapagos Islands making new beaks every few years? That makes more sense than evolution?
Completed my degree at the University of Southern California, working on my Pharm.D. degree right now, not sure why that would matter though...
Darwin's finches are not an argument against creationism (or Intelligent Design, whichever you prefer). ID doesn't say that God created every single different animal which we observe in the wild. It says that God created all the "kinds" of organisms. So possibly: one or possibly a few types of finch, snake, canine, etc. Natural selection and decent with modification are not anti-creation. All of the evidence for evolution can also be explained in the context of creation. So in terms of testing a claim via the scientific method, creationism stands up. (also, darwin's finches did not demonstrate large changes over a couple generations, it demonstrated decent with modification leading to a variety of beak shapes specialized for different forms of nutrition. It would take hundreds if not thousands of generations or more and many specific events (mutations in the right proteins, genetic drift, etc.) in order to create the number of finches darwin observed on Galapagos, and that's a widely accepted view by evolutionists).
The reason people choose not to believe in creationism is that it allows them to continue to do whatever they want to without the trouble of thinking about the consequences of their actions. If God created the world, then we have to answer to him, and that's scary to people.
Evolution is not more scientific that creation. There is a number of unproven assumptions that are made when conducting scientific research. One of the biggest assumptions is that the universe has an order, and that that order can be found through scientific experimentation. That assumption, like creation, cannot be proven...ever. We have to take it for granted. And that assumption is one that is decidedly pro-creation. If an intelligent being created the universe, makes sense that it would have an order, behave consistently, be defined by laws such as gravity, and that it would be intelligible. If it came about by "randomness" why would we expect it to have an order? For those who think intelligent design prevents scientific discovery, the very opposite is true. The very first scientists sought to learn about the environment because they believed God created it, and it was intelligible. If they thought random processes brought everything into existence by accident for no reason at all, why assume that there is an order? They might never have bothered.
But there is an order, and every hard science points to this. It's extremely ironic that the things that are discovered and described (and in many circumstances only understood) by the most intelligent people in the world are said to have come about without intelligence. And those who insist that that doesn't make sense and that there is a creator are ridiculed. At the very least we can agree to disagree, but dont call people stupid because they believe in a creator, or because they feel if one opinion is going to be taught in schools then the other should be as well. Because evolution (specifically the origin of species, the view that all life on earth has a common ancestor) has far more hurdles to overcome before it is truly proven feasible, whereas creationism is a viable explanation right now.
If you will do your homework, you will find it to be true. God will be found by those looking for the truth. I'm not asking you to look for God, just look for the truth, you will find him.
It's not a belief, it is an acceptance off facts based on observation.
I think that is called science.
That's why your argument is so absurd.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Comments are closed on this entry