Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)

In message , Suzanne
writes

It takes *faith* to believe that a bacterium can,
with thought or instinct to survive, produce a
complex motor-like mechanism that all comes
together simultaneously and conveniently so
that it can survive in style.

Did you actually bother doing the search I suggested, or following some
of the links?
It seems not.
This seems to be a fairly hot topic, because searches for "evolution of
the bacterial flagellum" or "evolution of flagella" (with quotes to get
the exact phrase) also give hundreds of hits.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Suzanne
writes

It takes *faith* to believe that a bacterium can,
with thought or instinct to survive, produce a
complex motor-like mechanism that all comes
together simultaneously and conveniently so
that it can survive in style.

Did you actually bother doing the search I suggested, or following some of
the links?
It seems not.
This seems to be a fairly hot topic, because searches for "evolution of
the bacterial flagellum" or "evolution of flagella" (with quotes to get
the exact phrase) also give hundreds of hits.

Yes, I've seen some of them, but not all
because there are too many since just the
25th to cover. But John, a good argument
is that there are cells that can produce a
whole "machine-like" body part, such as a
heart. But then it comes into the question of
who programmed a single cell to be able to
do that. I don't think it came about by such
as microevolution.

Suzanne

Dear Suzanne:

"Suzanne" wrote in message
news ....
Did you actually bother doing the search I suggested, or
following some of the links?
It seems not. This seems to be a fairly hot topic,
because searches for "evolution of the bacterial
flagellum" or "evolution of flagella" (with quotes to get the
exact phrase) also give hundreds of hits.

Yes, I've seen some of them, but not all
because there are too many since just the
25th to cover. But John, a good argument
is that there are cells that can produce a
whole "machine-like" body part, such as a
heart. But then it comes into the question of
who programmed a single cell to be able to
do that. I don't think it came about by such
as microevolution.

There are "things like hearts" in the animal kingdom all the way
down to multi-celled organisms where "peristaltic motion" isn't
enough to supply all the cells with nutrients and eliminate
wastes. Such an evolution chain from them to us is constructed
quite easily.

As to the miracle of cellular DNA, note that there are quite a
number of "false steps" written there too. The page is written
in many hands, and only the "clearest marks" are (usually)
expressed in the organism. It is not uncommon for the human
organism to have tails, six toes, more than two nipples,
non-functional second stomachs (the appendix), and so on.

I think it more likely that God doesn't care about false starts,
as much as he/she/they/it does that it be started. A ship is
sailed from port to port not by a single perfect tug at the
tiller, but by constant correction. The start isn't important,
the end isn't important. The trip is. This is how we do things,
and we are made in "His" image, right?

You might argue that this is because we don't know any better,
that we cannot see all the obstacles to any particular course.
If this "creation" has so many "flaws" and "exceptions", can you
truly differentiate between a God that does not see the obstacles
either, or One that expresses those obstacles also for the
purpose of inventing a way around them when they are encountered?

It is more likely that our silly, shallow value judgments are
what keep us from seeing the real pattern, the real proof of
Divine Creation... whatever that might be. Because evolution is
clearly the message Written.

Soap box put away...

David A. Smith

Suzanne wrote:

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Suzanne
writes

It takes *faith* to believe that a bacterium can,
with thought or instinct to survive, produce a
complex motor-like mechanism that all comes
together simultaneously and conveniently so
that it can survive in style.

Did you actually bother doing the search I suggested, or following some of
the links?
It seems not.
This seems to be a fairly hot topic, because searches for "evolution of
the bacterial flagellum" or "evolution of flagella" (with quotes to get
the exact phrase) also give hundreds of hits.

Yes, I've seen some of them, but not all
because there are too many since just the
25th to cover. But John, a good argument
is that there are cells that can produce a
whole "machine-like" body part, such as a
heart. But then it comes into the question of
who programmed a single cell to be able to
do that. I don't think it came about by such
as microevolution.


Why is it that none of these creationist typed dares answer questions,
like for the above, who programmed the programmer? Doesn't that show
the fallacy of their "Faith" they attempt to push as "science"?

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In message nbvif.22705$xu.22200@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
(dlzc)" writes
Dear Suzanne:


As to the miracle of cellular DNA, note that there are quite a
number of "false steps" written there too. The page is written
in many hands, and only the "clearest marks" are (usually)
expressed in the organism. It is not uncommon for the human
organism to have tails, six toes, more than two nipples,
non-functional second stomachs (the appendix), and so on.

I think it more likely that God doesn't care about false starts,
as much as he/she/they/it does that it be started. A ship is
sailed from port to port not by a single perfect tug at the
tiller, but by constant correction. The start isn't important,
the end isn't important. The trip is. This is how we do things,
and we are made in "His" image, right?

The problem is that the human organism also contains the potential for
hellish (a word I use deliberately) "false steps" such as Huntington's
Disease. The bible repeatedly says that god steps in to protect people,
especially innocents and children.
The modern church explains that, but you do _you_ explain it, Suzanne?


You might argue that this is because we don't know any better,
that we cannot see all the obstacles to any particular course.
If this "creation" has so many "flaws" and "exceptions", can you
truly differentiate between a God that does not see the obstacles
either, or One that expresses those obstacles also for the
purpose of inventing a way around them when they are encountered?

It is more likely that our silly, shallow value judgments are
what keep us from seeing the real pattern, the real proof of
Divine Creation... whatever that might be. Because evolution is
clearly the message Written.



Is that why the mainstream modern church has no problem with evolution?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:58:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Suzanne wrote:

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Suzanne
writes

It takes *faith* to believe that a bacterium can,
with thought or instinct to survive, produce a
complex motor-like mechanism that all comes
together simultaneously and conveniently so
that it can survive in style.

Did you actually bother doing the search I suggested, or following some of
the links?
It seems not.
This seems to be a fairly hot topic, because searches for "evolution of
the bacterial flagellum" or "evolution of flagella" (with quotes to get
the exact phrase) also give hundreds of hits.

Yes, I've seen some of them, but not all
because there are too many since just the
25th to cover. But John, a good argument
is that there are cells that can produce a
whole "machine-like" body part, such as a
heart. But then it comes into the question of
who programmed a single cell to be able to
do that. I don't think it came about by such
as microevolution.


Why is it that none of these creationist typed dares answer questions,
like for the above, who programmed the programmer? Doesn't that show
the fallacy of their "Faith" they attempt to push as "science"?

They dare not do so, as it will reveal to themselves, the vacuousness
of their position.
These people thrive on self-deception, and will do anything to
maintain that delusion.

Absolutely anything.

Dear Jonathan Silverlight:

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
...
In message nbvif.22705$xu.22200@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com (dlzc)" writes
Dear Suzanne:


As to the miracle of cellular DNA, note that there are quite a
number of "false steps" written there too. The page is written
in many hands, and only the "clearest marks" are (usually)
expressed in the organism. It is not uncommon for the human
organism to have tails, six toes, more than two nipples,
non-functional second stomachs (the appendix), and so on.

I think it more likely that God doesn't care about false
starts,
as much as he/she/they/it does that it be started. A ship is
sailed from port to port not by a single perfect tug at the
tiller, but by constant correction. The start isn't important,
the end isn't important. The trip is. This is how we do
things,
and we are made in "His" image, right?

The problem is that the human organism also contains the
potential for hellish (a word I use deliberately) "false steps"
such as Huntington's Disease. The bible repeatedly says
that god steps in to protect people, especially innocents
and children.

I find it interesting that people afflicted with sickle cell
anemia are tolerant of malaria, and people that are carriers for
cystic fibrosis are tolerant of cholera.

David A. Smith

In message 7rDif.22746$xu.8923@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
writes
Dear Jonathan Silverlight:

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
.. .
In message nbvif.22705$xu.22200@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com (dlzc)" writes
Dear Suzanne:


As to the miracle of cellular DNA, note that there are quite a
number of "false steps" written there too. The page is written
in many hands, and only the "clearest marks" are (usually)
expressed in the organism. It is not uncommon for the human
organism to have tails, six toes, more than two nipples,
non-functional second stomachs (the appendix), and so on.

I think it more likely that God doesn't care about false
starts,
as much as he/she/they/it does that it be started. A ship is
sailed from port to port not by a single perfect tug at the
tiller, but by constant correction. The start isn't important,
the end isn't important. The trip is. This is how we do
things,
and we are made in "His" image, right?

The problem is that the human organism also contains the
potential for hellish (a word I use deliberately) "false steps"
such as Huntington's Disease. The bible repeatedly says
that god steps in to protect people, especially innocents
and children.

I find it interesting that people afflicted with sickle cell
anemia are tolerant of malaria, and people that are carriers for
cystic fibrosis are tolerant of cholera.



There are other examples, and they make good sense in terms of
evolutionary theory. If such "false steps" didn't confer some net
advantage to the species , they wouldn't survive and we wouldn't see
them. And Huntington's disease doesn't appear until after the victim has
had children, so a "mistake" in the huntingtin gene doesn't affect the
survival of the species.
Evolution doesn't care, but a god that doesn't care, and builds this
hell into "his" creation? No thanks.

Michael Gray wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:58:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Suzanne wrote:

[..]
Yes, I've seen some of them, but not all
because there are too many since just the
25th to cover. But John, a good argument
is that there are cells that can produce a
whole "machine-like" body part, such as a
heart. But then it comes into the question of
who programmed a single cell to be able to
do that. I don't think it came about by such
as microevolution.


Why is it that none of these creationist typed dares answer questions,
like for the above, who programmed the programmer? Doesn't that show
the fallacy of their "Faith" they attempt to push as "science"?

They dare not do so, as it will reveal to themselves, the vacuousness
of their position.
These people thrive on self-deception, and will do anything to
maintain that delusion.

Absolutely anything.

I'm sure you are right :-)

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------