Correlation between Education and Evolution

rossum

Active member
Abiogenesis is a joke. Even if you did have all the materials needed to make a "building," you still need builders. No building has ever made itself and it is asinine to suggest otherwise.
Abiogenesis happened. There was no life on earth 20 billion years ago. There is life on earth today. Therefore life appeared on earth some time in the last 20 billion years.

The assembling the materials was done by chemistry. I suggest you start by learning about lipid bilayers.

And how do you know what the conditions of the early earth were?
Because we have rocks dating from the early earth which tell us about the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the seas. Observations of other planets in the universe also provided some information.

Something you need to learn about science is that any "How do you know ..." question will always have an answer. Science always has evidence to back up its statements. If there is no evidence then science says, "We don't know."

Where did those chemicals come from?
Stellar nucleosynthesis for the most part, though some of the hydrogen could date back to the Big Bang.

It means that the painting of God was designed.
Correct. Just as the fact that the computer program was designed does not mean that the process it emulated was designed.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Most colleges are not teaching opposing theories. What reason would students have to reject evolution when they are never taught how to think for themselves?
Yeah, it is awful that the physics department does not teach astrology, and the biology department does not teach homeopathy!

No, but seriously, the reason these things are not taught is that they are what we call pseudo-science. That is to say, something dressed up to appear to be science, but in reality anything but.

Kind of odd that you think physics departments not teaching astrology means they never teach students how to think for themselves. Is it possible to teach students to think for themselves without teaching them pseudo-science?
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Yes it does. Strands of RNA can form spontaneously by chemical reactions only. RNA forms much more easily than DNA, another reason that RNA world is a common hypothesis. Another point where your sources are misinforming you.
I guess I'll have to give you this one. RNA can exist without DNA in RNA viruses. And no my sources are not misleading me - I came up with this little tidbit on my own from how the RNA is produced in the cell.

So, the mere fact that the designer exists now is not evidence that it played a role in OOL. Better find some new evidence for ID, hadn't you?
First of all, you don't accept that fact that He exists now and secondly He exists now and was also there during the creation of life since He created it.

It is evidence that it is a better candidate than other candidates. There is more than one piece of evidence used in the study of abiogenesis.
It would be classified more as a suggestion since you can't have evidence for a theory that doesn't exist.

Is gravity intelligent? Gravity provides the information to allow water to flow downhill, not uphill. You need to show the objective calculable definition of "functional information" that you are using.
Functional information doesn't have intelligence either. Only the mind that is its source has intelligence.

The real concept that is used is specified complexity. Something can be specified but yet simple enough so that it can be reached by stochastic processes. But if it is both specified and complex enough to be beyond probable resources then it is more likely to be from intelligence. That is why large amounts of functional information fit the bill nicely, it is both specified and complex. The question is how do you measure complexity? With information this is an easy process of counting the number of bits. With the English language there are 26 letters so its information has a lower bound of 4.7 bits per letter. While both DNA and RNA have 4 letters which means they have 2 bits of information per base pair. The 2 bits in each base pair means that it's probability of occurring in a string is equivalent to two fair coin flips and the probability of any sequence of N base pairs is 2^N coin flips. Of course this would mean nothing if every string of RNA is functional (that is, not specified). That is why the DI is in the process of finding the degree of functionality in DNA/RNA space. Currently the estimate is 1 in 10^77 to get a protein fold. This estimate is from more than simply ID sources.

 
Last edited:

Cody

Member
Yeah, it is awful that the physics department does not teach astrology, and the biology department does not teach homeopathy!

No, but seriously, the reason these things are not taught is that they are what we call pseudo-science. That is to say, something dressed up to appear to be science, but in reality anything but.

Kind of odd that you think physics departments not teaching astrology means they never teach students how to think for themselves. Is it possible to teach students to think for themselves without teaching them pseudo-science?
Why do you think believing in God is pseudo-science?
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Yeah, it is awful that the physics department does not teach astrology, and the biology department does not teach homeopathy!

No, but seriously, the reason these things are not taught is that they are what we call pseudo-science. That is to say, something dressed up to appear to be science, but in reality anything but.

Kind of odd that you think physics departments not teaching astrology means they never teach students how to think for themselves. Is it possible to teach students to think for themselves without teaching them pseudo-science?
The trouble with your assessment is that astrology and homeopathy are not currently held opposing views.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
The trouble with your assessment is that astrology and homeopathy are not currently held opposing views.
May be overlap with homeopathy if medical marijuana is included in the mix since it was homeopathic origins. Also, diet as opposed to surgery. Would say vaccine refusal would be more homeopathic depending on natural body immune systems as opposed to outside manipulation of the immune system thru vaccines.

A friend got prostate cancer and the treatment meant surgery which could have meant impotence and he was married. Went the homeopathic route which meant diet. Don't know how it all turned out for him since he moved away. Do know he was a Ph.D in English so he was no slouch of kook.

A lot of what they are doing in medicine these days are rubbing people the wrong way including vaccines.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
May be overlap with homeopathy if medical marijuana is included in the mix since it was homeopathic origins. Also, diet as opposed to surgery. Would say vaccine refusal would be more homeopathic depending on natural body immune systems as opposed to outside manipulation of the immune system thru vaccines.

A friend got prostate cancer and the treatment meant surgery which could have meant impotence and he was married. Went the homeopathic route which meant diet. Don't know how it all turned out for him since he moved away. Do know he was a Ph.D in English so he was no slouch of kook.

A lot of what they are doing in medicine these days are rubbing people the wrong way including vaccines.
Darn, I knew I should have left out, homeopathy. But this might mean that it is taught as an opposing view which was the point in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Andy Sist

Active member
The real concept that is used is specified complexity. Something can be specified but yet simple enough so that it can be reached by stochastic processes. But if it is both specified and complex enough to be beyond probable resources then it is more likely to be from intelligence.
There are two fatal problems with those ID-Creationist claims

1. No one has ever identified any specification for any biological system. A specification is a before the fact design document with requirements the design must meet. IDCers only have after the fact descriptions which they falsely call specifications.

2. No one has ever calculated any actual probabilities for the formation of any biological system. All IDCer "it's too improbable" calculations make the false assumption the biological system had to fall together from its pieces all at once instead of the known process of slowly accumulating changes involving selection feedback.

This ID-Creationist garbage has been rejected by real science ever since the IDCers started pushing it over two decades ago. Still they keep trotting it out to sell books to the ignorant rubes.
 

rossum

Active member
I came up with this little tidbit on my own from how the RNA is produced in the cell.
You are correct for what happens in the cell. However, with abiogenesis we are looking at what happened before the first cell formed. Hence what happens in a cell is not always a good guide.

First of all, you don't accept that fact that He exists now and secondly He exists now and was also there during the creation of life since He created it.
The Abrahamic God did not create life, since He is a living God and He did not create Himself. One living thing creating another living thing is not such a big deal; bacteria can do it.

If God did create the world, then ID is ignoring the evidence He left. Is it really beyond an omnipotent deity to create a universe where life will appear without any need for further direct intervention? That is what ID says, that the universe as initially created could not give rise to life without further direct intervention from the designer. The ID designer didn't get it quite right first time and needed a second bite of the cherry. That is a recipe for a less than omnipotent designer, or one who made an error first time around.

It would be classified more as a suggestion since you can't have evidence for a theory that doesn't exist.
Hypotheses can have evidence a well as theories.

Functional information doesn't have intelligence either. Only the mind that is its source has intelligence.
And who/what designed the functional information in the mind that designed the functional information in life? Or are you saying that functional information does not necessarily need a mind to design it?

The real concept that is used is specified complexity.
Yes, I am aware of Dr. Dembski's CSI. The problem there is the "specified" part. Complexity is easy to measure using Shannon or similar. The problem is coming up with a valid specification. As Dembski himself says you need to place the target (the specification) before you shoot the arrow. You can't paint the target round where your arrow landed, after the event. See Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information.
 

rossum

Active member
Why do you think believing in God is pseudo-science?
Do you think believing in Vishnu is pseudo-science? Allah? Amaterasu? Do you have scientific evidence that Durga, say, does not exist?

Can you be sure that Loki-Trickster is not messing with the output of your experiments to show that Durga does not exist?

In science you cannot just assume that your particular God is the only god that exists.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
You are correct for what happens in the cell. However, with abiogenesis we are looking at what happened before the first cell formed. Hence what happens in a cell is not always a good guide.
I assume that this is a place filler. What happens in the cell is always a good guide since it determines the obstacles and goals that a replacement has to overcome.
The Abrahamic God did not create life, since He is a living God and He did not create Himself.
One has nothing to do with the other.

One living thing creating another living thing is not such a big deal; bacteria can do it.
That's what you want in an explanation. You want the cause not to be a big deal for the effect. Of cause bacteria do not create living things, they reproduce it.
If God did create the world, then ID is ignoring the evidence He left. Is it really beyond an omnipotent deity to create a universe where life will appear without any need for further direct intervention? That is what ID says, that the universe as initially created could not give rise to life without further direct intervention from the designer. The ID designer didn't get it quite right first time and needed a second bite of the cherry. That is a recipe for a less than omnipotent designer, or one who made an error first time around.
A complete misunderstanding of what ID says. I understand evolution more than evolutionists understand ID. Design is detected from the design itself with no mention of any intervention by a designer.
And who/what designed the functional information in the mind that designed the functional information in life? Or are you saying that functional information does not necessarily need a mind to design it?
The source of information is a mind. The source of our mind is the Creator who has always existed and does not require a causation and who is able to create information from His intelligence or mind.
Yes, I am aware of Dr. Dembski's CSI. The problem there is the "specified" part. Complexity is easy to measure using Shannon or similar. The problem is coming up with a valid specification. As Dembski himself says you need to place the target (the specification) before you shoot the arrow. You can't paint the target round where your arrow landed, after the event. See Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information.
The specified object is the target and the arrows are the available resources with the capability to reach that target. Since the specified object has existed before we came along, you can't make the claim that we painted the target.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Active member
Why do you think believing in God is pseudo-science?
I was referring to creationism.

When you said "Most colleges are not teaching opposing theories" I assumed that was a reference to the conflict between evolution and creationism. Was I wrong?
 

The Pixie

Active member
The trouble with your assessment is that astrology and homeopathy are not currently held opposing views.
Astrology opposes mainstream physics. Homeopathy opposes mainstream biology.

My opinion is that that astrology should not be taught as a opposing theory to physics, homeopathy should not be taught as an opposing theory to biology, creationism should not be taught as an opposing theory to biology. These things are all pseudo-science, and have no place is science education.
 

rossum

Active member
One has nothing to do with the other.
God is not alive? The Bible is wrong then: "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God." -- Psalm 42:2

A complete misunderstanding of what ID says. I understand evolution more than evolutionists understand ID. Design is detected from the design itself with no mention of any intervention by a designer.
Your evidence that this design dates back 13.5 billion years is? Your evidence that no interventions by the designer have occurred since then is? Any design intervention since the Big Bang is evidence of bad design in the initial singularity; bad design that needs later correction.

The source of information is a mind. The source of our mind is the Creator who has always existed and does not require a causation and who is able to create information from His intelligence or mind.
You are denying your own claim. If information comes from a mind then where did the information inherent in your creator come from? Your omniscient creator contains information. An eternal uncaused creator was not caused by a mind, and yet contains information. This is an example of uncaused, undesigned information. Thank you for providing a refutation of the claims of ID.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
God is not alive? The Bible is wrong then: "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God." -- Psalm 42:2
How do your get that "God is not alive" from "one has nothing to do with the other"?
Your evidence that this design dates back 13.5 billion years is? Your evidence that no interventions by the designer have occurred since then is? Any design intervention since the Big Bang is evidence of bad design in the initial singularity; bad design that needs later correction.
He created the universe then He created life on this planet. If you want to misconstrue that as intervention then do be it.
You are denying your own claim. If information comes from a mind then where did the information inherent in your creator come from? Your omniscient creator contains information. An eternal uncaused creator was not caused by a mind, and yet contains information. This is an example of uncaused, undesigned information. Thank you for providing a refutation of the claims of ID.
The intelligence of the Creator always existed. Intelligence is able to create information. No refutation for this on my side.
 

Cody

Member
I was referring to creationism.

When you said "Most colleges are not teaching opposing theories" I assumed that was a reference to the conflict between evolution and creationism. Was I wrong?

I was not specifically referring to young earth creationism in that post. My point in that post was simply that if students are taught only about evolution, then they are not likely to consider opposing views.
 

rossum

Active member
How do your get that "God is not alive" from "one has nothing to do with the other"?
OK, so God is alive and my point that God did not create all living things is correct. There is one living thing that God did not create.

The intelligence of the Creator always existed. Intelligence is able to create information. No refutation for this on my side.
How can you have intelligence without information? God is omniscient, so He knows all the text of every book ever written, or to be written. The texts of those books are information. That information is enough to be complex and was not designed. Hence complex information can exist without being designed. ID is incorrect.
 

The Pixie

Active member
I was not specifically referring to young earth creationism in that post. My point in that post was simply that if students are taught only about evolution, then they are not likely to consider opposing views.
And my point was that the opposing view to evolution, creationism, is pseudo-science.

Students are not taught creationism because it is nonsense. It is not science, so has no place is science education - just the same as astrology and homeopathy.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
There are two fatal problems with those ID-Creationist claims

1. No one has ever identified any specification for any biological system. A specification is a before the fact design document with requirements the design must meet. IDCers only have after the fact descriptions which they falsely call specifications.
To secularists nothing in biological systems is specified. The heart isn't for pumping blood, the lungs, the kidneys, the eyes, the liver, the nerves and so on. Then you'll come back with these are all part of evolution thereby contradicting yourself.
2. No one has ever calculated any actual probabilities for the formation of any biological system. All IDCer "it's too improbable" calculations make the false assumption the biological system had to fall together from its pieces all at once instead of the known process of slowly accumulating changes involving selection feedback.
Sure we have. See my message to Rossum.

This ID-Creationist garbage has been rejected by real science ever since the IDCers started pushing it over two decades ago. Still they keep trotting it out to sell books to the ignorant rubes.
Ad hominem is sure indication of a lack of argument.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
My point in that post was simply that if students are taught only about evolution, then they are not likely to consider opposing views.

Right now there aren't any scientifically valid opposing views worthy of mention in science classrooms Religion based hypotheses like ID-Creationism can be taught in Theology class.
 
Top