Because even a tiny change in the population growth rate assumed can have a huge impact on the outcome. It's a common creationist tactic to pick a growth rate that just gives the answer they need. Do the math yourself and change the assumed growth rate by +/- 10% and see how much different today's population would be.

And using the method of picking a population growth rate that seems reasonable (today's rate adjusted for shorter lifespan, higher infant mortality etc - as the Creationists explain their methodology) just won't work because the population growth rate varies significantly over time. You can't use an arithmetic average to come up with a number that will be plugged into a geometric growth equation spanning hundreds of thousands of years - the result will be totally meaningless.

If the creationist methodology were applied to the population of house flies, for example, the results would show either that we should be up to our necks in flies, or at the other end, that flies didn't come into existence until sometime in the past 30 years. Again, do the calculation yourself and see how little you need to change the "fixed" growth rate to deliver up these two results.

The reality is populations of all creatures rise and fall cyclically for a variety of reasons. In the past hundred years, humans have experienced a fairly steady growth in population, mostly because agriculture has stabilized the food supply.

Under your postulated growth scenario, how many people were around to build the pyramids, Stonehenge and a host of other ancient structures. I'd guess a few hundred. What do you figure?

Prince: ... Yet no human bone, artefact or record can be positively dated as being older than 10,000 years, ...

Read the post I made just before this, and then tell us what part of "... a human mandible and evidence of a lithic industry ..." you didn't understand.

Prince: ... why is humanity not to be numbered in the 100s of billions?

Because Lambert Dolphin fails to understand the intracacies of population growth. I used his formula, and calculated that as a result of 1000 months (generations) of growth, we should now be hosting a housefly population of approximately 10^1670. That's about 10^1665 kg of housflies, on a planet that weighs in at a hefty 6x10^24 kg, in a universe that probably doesn't carry any more than about 10^63 kg.

So go back and ask Lambert what happened to the flies.

Please tell me you are not serious.

1.) Mathematical models, including population model, are only as valid as the data they predict. If the model does not fit the data, you have to throw the model out. You can't throw out the data.

2.) All models have a range of validity. If you think a little four term equation will accurately model population over a million years or even six thousand years, you are seriously mistaken. Birth rates, death rates, food supply, cull rates, yada yada do not stay constant as simple models assume. The model that you linked to also says the world should consist of nothing but bacteria.

And this from CNN.

I realise that this thread is getting a wee bit off topic (okay, not a wee bit), but I just have to say this: not everybody means homo sapiens when they say human - it can also refer to hominids (animals that look like homo sapiens, eg. homo erectus or neandertal).

Hmm... when does the earliest homo sapiens fossil occur, anyway?

Kennewick Man has been dated by many independent sources to be 9.5K yrs old. Kennewick Man is a complete skeleton that was found on the banks of the Columbia River a few years ago near the town of Kennewick, WA. He has been studied by our local scientists. I have been to their lectures.

As to whether Kennewick man is different than modern humans, this was specifically addressed and is discussed in a book about the research, 'Ancient Encounters, Kennewick Man and the First Americans', by James C. Chatters, 2001. Native Americans here have claimed the bones are their ancestors and researchers wanted to find what they could to determine the validity of the claim.

The book gives a very detailed account of the characteristics of humans in the Americas around 10K years ago. They did differ, but so do humans today. Unless you want to claim that caucasions are human and other family lines are not, Americans 10K years ago were not 'precursor hominids'.

There are other human skeletons that have been found both in North and South America from this time period. It is fascinating to read about all the things that have been uncovered about human migration to the Americas.

I'm impressed with Tim's data on where we were a million years ago. I for one, do appreciate the resources he takes time to share with us.

I just can't figure what the point is to post statements on this board that are not well researched, nor well thought out when there is so much incredible information available on the subjects being discussed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-07-11 04:04 ]</font>

About Xriso's pointing out that we are looking at a translation in Genesis 1 -

Yes, I am aware of the Hebrew definition of day being from Evening to Evening. I even have had a couple semesters in Hebrew. Our definition of a day is in fact similar to the ancient Jews, we just put the cutoff at midnight instead of sunset. But both point to a 24 hour period. Again, if this is not a 24hr period, why refer to evening and morning?

There are indeed times when "day" refers to something other than 24 hours - "a day for the Lord is like a thousand years, etc." But these are all in highly poetic and figurative contexts. In biblical interpretation, context is key. Genesis as a whole is not like Revelations, Daniel or even the Psalms. It is a simple account of past events as a witness would see them at the time.

Also, no one in the church that I am aware of interpreted the seven days as anything other than literal untill modern science came allong. I'd admit it's possible there is some figurative reading, but I don't see any evidence in the text itself that this is the case.

I wish this were not so. I'm a believer in Intelligent Design(or old-earth creationism) in science, and the Bible in religion. But I don't wish to sacrifice my intellectual integrity to have my science and theology agree. Better to let them conflict, be patient, and admit what ya dont know.

Also, from what I've seen, most Young Earth Creationist astronomy violates the "principle of mediocrity" - ie, they put earth in some obvious special physical place in the universe. Anyone who says the earth occupies some special place, such as being near the center of the physical universe, will and should be expected to bear a very heavy burden of proof scientifically.

I myself hold some very human or earth centered views(The God of the whole universe came down to earth as man....) but I arrive at them indirectly through the evidence of Christ's resurection, God's work in my and others life, the human need for Christ, etc. I dont propose to prove such views through direct, observational evidence. It is unfair to expect someone who does not already believe in the above to seriously listen to an Anthropocentric theory such as been propounded by many creationists, at least not without ALLOT more evidence than has been presented thus far.

Peace,

Cloudy

People evince a poor knowledge of Biblical
Hebrew. If God had wanted to teach us that the creation took aeons He would have
used Hebrew words like yamim, yom rav, olam, kedem, dor, orech, netzach, ad, et, shanim,
tamid and moed. However He used the word yom with 'evening and morning', and
especially when followed by a number, is totally unambiguous. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled the humanity for thousands of years. Genesis was understood in a straightforward
way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with the "gap theory", long ages
and evolution.

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of
creation were 24-hour days. Do you also interpret the Sabbath days as billions of
years?! "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
hallowed it" (Exodus 20).

Please read this page:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...days.html?main

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Well, not exactly:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...port.html?main

(If you have the time to read the whole thing!)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Dangers of Theistic Evolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...cFrom=aig_news

Old Earth Creationism is hardly Theistic Evolution...

And you are illustrating my point perfectly. Creationists can't even agree...

Creationists like to believe they are a monolithic enity that has all this evidence against evolution. But they aren't... They can't even agree about basic fundamentals (no pun intended...)

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

And don't dismiss us Flat Earthers! Creationists are terribly embarrassed by us, but our viewpoint is every bit as valid as their is.

(Which is to say...not very!)

Silas

Thanks for the link Nebularian. It
has gone a long way towards correcting my
previous misconceptions.

I will have to look at it more deeply though. Ancient commentators often use a technique called Typology. This technique involves saying that a text is both literally true and has an allegorical meaning(to be short). This is no contradiction if you believe that God can control events in this world. When they acknowledge the figurative, they are not neccesarily denying the literal.

That being said - I can now see that many ancient commentators had trouble with the "24 hr day" interpretation. When I have the time, I'll tap some of their wisdom and perhaps reevaluate my views...

'First, Tim, thanx for classifying stellar evolution as a theory. So many people forget that little detail, or the actual definition of the word theory.'

Ahh, the old 'theory as speculation' argument. Yes, stellar evolution is a theory, just as evolution by natural selection is a theory. But this sublte twist of implied semantics doesn't mean 'theory=uninformed speculation with no attention paid to alternatives and facts' as creationists like to imply. Theories in science (despite all the hoo-hah by certain philosophers about sociological influences) are not half-baked up speculations but are often comprehensive frameworks designed to fit a number of widely varying facts and observations into a coherent whole. 'Creation science' is a theory, and indeed, one that makes many predictions, but unlike the theory of stellar evolution, or galaxy evolution, it is not full of inconsistencies and faults the creationist account is. What is more, creation science includes within its framework a mysterious deity whose every act is a miracle; which by definition cannot be understood by means of science. Are we supposed to just 'accept this on faith?' Do we accept on 'faith' the planets and Sun orbit the Earth, the cosmos is only 6,000 years or so old, etc on 'faith' and revelation, and ignore pertinent evidence to the contrary?

If you were a devout Christian and found strong evidence against the validity of your beliefs, what would you do? Finding an answer to this question is important, and many creationists seem to respond by sticking their nose up at science, or at least the parts that don't fit into their theistic worldview. This isn't science. It is wilful ignorance.

The philosophy underlying the creationist arguments is also very poor. They assume automatically God exists and intervenes in the universe my miracles. The case for miracles is actually very weak when applied to skeptical scrutiny, as is the case for revelation and even arguments attempting to support rational belief in God. The 'fact' vs 'theory' argument is also weak; http://www.talkorigins.org have a good FAQ written by a philosopher debunking this.

Another philosophically weak argument is appealing to ignorance, as well as the 'black and white' fallacy; arguments like 'you can't prove it because you weren't there' or 'you can't prove God did not do x, y and z ten minutes or 6000 years ago' proves nothing. It is like someone walking out into the rain and saying 'You can't prove this is rain; who are you to say it isn't holy water falling off the wings of Angels in heaven?'



'Anyway, as support for your theory, you'll be happy to give two or three examples of stars that have evolved exactly according to that theory, with documentation, won't you?'

Have a look at the H-R diagram and see the predicted evolution of the Sun as compared to where it is now. Also do the same for other stars. The H-R diagram correlates very well with predicted stellar ages, lifetimes, brightness, etc with computational models based on the known laws of physics. See the 'Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy', 'Stars' by James Kaler or the books on stellar astrophysics that have been referred to you. Don't appeal to ignorance.

I will ask:

Does the bible explain the H-R diagram? Does it explain in detail why we see things like white dwarves, neutron stars and supernova? Does the bible explain the element abundances in stars? Does it explain the existence of Population I and II stars? Do any creationists have any scientific papers they can cite (from refereed journals) to support any of the above?




'The theory 'explains' that there is a progression from one to the other, with all the other variations either along the way or as minor offshoots from the 'main sequence'. Yet we have exactly zero evidence that any star has ever changed states along this so-called sequence.'

Evidence please? Have you looked at an H-R diagram?

'The red giant stars that we see today have always been red giant stars for as far back as we have observational accounts;'

This is definitely not the case. Do you know about Eta Carina? That has changed a lot in brightness in the past century. How about Mira? That pulsates and changes in colour and brightness on a regular interval. The same goes for many types of binaries, novas, and supernovas. Remember Supernova 1987A in the LMC? Photos showed that was a bluish supergiant before exploding. Did that star 'remain the same?' And so on. This idea of a static, fixed and immutable heavens is not even original to Christianity; it dates back to Aristotle, who lived well before Christ.

'likewise, the sun is exactly the same today as the earliest descriptions of it we have. It's never gotten larger nor smaller, brighter nor dimmer, redder nor greener.'

This is not the case. There is evidence to suggest it has slowly increased in luminosity over time. Again your 'static' universe falls down.




'Yes, we have stars that do change: we call them novas and supernovas. But these changes are all we see, we do not have any evidence that any star has ever followed the 'main sequence' or any standardly-accepted offshoot thereof.'

Evidence please? You are not very convincing unless you cite some credible sources.


'The idea that there must be some sort of explanation that derives one stellar type from another is strictly an imaginative creation that isn't called for by the known facts.'

Again where getting into the 'it's just a theory' rhetoric again. Stellar physics is not armchair speculation. It is well understood and correlates well with observations. So, what does creation science say? The stars and their properties are made of a substance we cannot possibly understand the workings of? They are all created by a divine miracle? Gee, that's a great advance in understanding the cosmos.



'And Traztx, is God to be blamed because mankind invents theories that require billions of years to work out, when the evidence of the stars themselves in no way requires such theories?'

Again you have little to fall back on but appeals to ignorance. Cite some credible sources, or at least, read the material Tim has pointed out.

'God created the stars as they are;'

But how does a miracle explain anything? This is hardly science, it is fundamentalist theology. If God has the power to create stars from nothing, then why doesn't he intervene to stop all the suffering and evil here on Earth? Why doesn't he wipe out evil people like Osama Bin Laden? If God can create stars made of hydrogen, given he is omnipotent, why not create stars made of Uranium? Why not create another omnipotent being like himself? Can he do that? Can God make 2 + 2 = 7 or make gravity repulsive on one planet and attractive on another? Why doesn't God make Pluto out of diamonds and the Moon out of Gold, so mankind can benefit? Why does God allow for natural disasters then, if he has the power to create planets?

I hope you see my point. Bringing God into the equation only raises far more questions than his introduction can possibly answer.

'men look up at them and, desiring to deny God,'

This is a bad false dichotomy that automatically assumes all astronomers who believe in stellar evolution (not to mention Christians who do as well) are atheists. This is patently false.

'And the end results--the stars, the planets, the nebulae, etc.--don't require that one particular process to be here. So blaming God for the "appearance" of billions of years, when it was men who created the perception of a need for billions of years in the first place, is rather naive.'

And introducing the concept of an omnipotent supernatural being is naive too. It explains nothing, in fact, it leaves theistic belief wide open to powerful objections like the 'evil and suffering objection' and 'laws of logic objection' and so on.

Creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner PhD on stellar evolution
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm

Yul: Creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner PhD on stellar evolution http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm

QUOTE (from the first paragraph of the conclusion section): "Stellar astronomers have developed very compelling evolutionary theories to explain the origin and diversity of stars as well as the elements. In the only creationist critique of stellar evolution, Mulfinger [37] argued for the rejection of all of stellar evolution theory. A possible problem with this approach is that the theory has a very strong basis in physics, a situation very different from biological evolution. Faulkner and DeYoung [23], who cautioned that creationists must be prepared to give strong physical arguments for rejecting stellar evolution, noted this."

Danny Faulkner, creationist PhD astronomer said of stellar evolution: .. the theory has a very strong basis in physics, ...".

Most of his 1996 article in fact does not deal with stellar evolution. Rather, he trots out a long list of "problems" for cosmological evolution, most of which are weak or disingenuous at best. His arguments about the earth-moon system, supernova remnants, galaxy spiral structure, are all surprisingly bad, far below the level one would expect from an unbiased PhD astronomer.

Creationism only works if you presuppose that it happened, and then circularly look for glimpses of evidence. If you look at the physical evidence at face value, creationism is a dismal failure.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-07-23 16:05 ]</font>

Greg-

As a biology major and science-lover, I can understand your viewpoint and appreciate your frustration. This whole issue could be settled a lot easier if people who have no knowledge of the scientific method or appreciation for scientific inquiry would keep their noses out of the mix.

However, as a Christian (no, I'm not a YEC, though), your statement here stings. I do not know if this was your intent, but it comes off sounding like: "People have no business believing in God because the existance and/or intervention of God cannot be proven."

We are human beings. We have needs, and we have limitations. Science fulfills our need to know and understand. However, science does not fulfill our need for worth, our need for purpose, our need for love, our need for comfort in times of sorrow, our need for happiness. Believing in God / following a religion fills this role in many people, and because of the strength and hope it gives us, we don't want to let it go, especially those of us who call God our Father.

As far as conflicts between science and religion, some people, like me, have sought and found a solution that compromises neither view (as I have mentioned in previous posts).

Now for a thought, if there is a God and His handiwork begins at the quantum level, would it even be possible for us to see that?

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-23 21:09 ]</font>

Good grief...

Faulkner is STILL going on about moon dust???

::shakes head slowly::

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

I see you correctly added "in many people" rather than in everyone.

I didn't take Greg's comments that way. I took them as feeling like I do at times when responding to poor logic or to arguments that show a lack of knowledge in a subject but coming from someone who refuses to believe they have a lack of knowledge. It can be frustrating and sometimes you just want to say so.

When you(Neb) disagree or have objections to a rationale, you seem to be listening to the person who is talking to you. You may not change your mind but you do relay the message that you are willing to examine the matter.

Many posters here never get past their rehearsed spiel, they just keep saying the same things over and over. Their answers don't even attempt to address the points other posters make. The other posters make an effort to address the 'never changing posters' but it can sometimes be like trying to have a discussion with a tape recorder.

I think writing without intonation is a tricky matter. When we talk, our voices carry different messages than those written alone. I have re-written many a sentence after evaluating what someone might interpret differently than I intended. I find that there is a skill to it, though I've clearly not mastered that skill myself.


On another note, check out this week's US News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020729/home.htmYou might find the feature article on evolution interesting because it so mirrors past discussions we have had. The gist of the main article is evolution is beyond being a theory, genetics adds the final proof.

There's 2 pages(in the hard copy) at the end touching on the intelligent design. Some revelations in the main article though, discredit ID's underlying premise that genetics alone can't account for such wide diversity. What the ID arguement relys on is only valid if you don't understand how one goes from an arm to a wing and what not. And we do understand how that happens.

I have a bit of a different view and feeling about this. My feeling is more that, if you can't prove God's existence or intervention, you have no business foisting your beliefs on other people.

I don't have any say about whether or not others believe in God, or in anything. But it really rankles me when people come along demanding that what they believe be accepted as truth without being able to show why I should believe it too.

I think that's what irritates some of us about the YEC's. It's not what they believe, but it seems they can't grasp why we don't believe it, and why we don't accept their "proofs". They are so hung up on their own beliefs that they don't look rationally at what they are presenting, and they don't listen rationally to the counter-arguments given in return. They just keep coming back with more and more of the same thing in hopes that something will stick.

They can't just accept that we don't agree with them, and they won't accept the fact that they have no logical evidence for their beliefs. Which is ok. A religious belief doesn't have to have a logical basis behind it. But if I demand a logical, scientific foundation for my acceptance, then you must either provide me with that evidence, or admit you don't have any and leave me alone. YEC's in particular do neither of these things.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

OK, I see your points. I hope you noticed I said: "I do not know if this was your intent..." because I wanted to be sure.

I also hope you understand that many of us of religious faith likewise feel frustrated that beliefs contrary to what we believe (such as humanism and atheism) are constantly being shoved down our throats in the public school system, in the media, and in entertainment - t.v. & movies). Granted, our religion compels us to share our faith, but either some of the time or a lot of the time, we react or overreact the way we do because we are fighting back. (And just whyhave many students and teachers been told over the years that they can't practice their religion in public schools? What happened to their first ammendment rights?) OK, I'm going off on a tangent, here. My point is the tug-of-war really does go both ways. YEC's most likely will never change their minds as long as they feel like their beliefs are being threatened. I, fortunately, was in a safe environment when struggling with this issue. Unfortunately, though, most YEC's don't value science enough to take things into consideration appropriately. I've been figuring out how to deal with the former issue; this latter issue, though, I am not sure how to work through yet (I keep practicing on my brother, but so far it hasn't worked; of course, he gets annoyed at me when I talk about scientific innacuracies in sci-fi movies, too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Oy!)

Beskeptical, that was an interesting link you offered. It would have been even better if they offered references to their claims. Some of them, I would have liked to look up, but I don't have a clue where to look. (I also wonder why the appendix keeps getting picked on as bieng a useless organ when in fact it acts as part of the immune system, just like tonsils.) Just for clarification, I don't have a problem with evolutionary change; my problem is with the idea that it is all random chance, that perfectly odered change was unguided - like a tornado whipping through a junkyard could throw the pieces of metal together into a perfectly functioning machine. OK, silly, extreme example, but that's along the lines of my perspective.

Why is it such a threat to conventional science that certain scientist want to probe into the possibility of a guiding hand, so to speak. If the theory can't be disproven, why can't it be explored (I am, of course, referring to ID and not YEC)? As far as classrooms go, I believe science should be taught as an ongoing mystery, offering students exposure to the different views and controversies surrounding a matter beyond just making them memorize the current conventional theory. This goes for all issues. It would make science classes a lot more interesting.

Of course, I would still like for someone to tackle my last question, about "what if God worked on the quantum level?" Seriously, I'd like to hear what people would have to say.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Oh, how I'd love to go off on that tangent with you! I've got some thoughts on the application of the anti-establishment clause to the school system, but, alas, not on this board, eh? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

But, add more junkyards and tornadoes, and the probability of it happening in one of them increases - with enough chances, the odds become better that it would happen in one of them than that it wouldn't in any of them. And, obviously, the one-in-a-billion where intelligent life does develop would be the only one where there'd be anybody to question the odds of it happening! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It can, but it's not science. A theory must be falsifiable, it must be possible for it to be disproven, in order for it to have any scientific validity.

I certainly agree that science students should be taught how science works and why the current theories are currently accepted. Saying, "Just accept it because the scientists know what they're talking about" is no different than saying, "Just accept it because the priests know what they're talking about" (And don't anybody tell me about the difference between how science works and how religion works. If the student is not told or not aware of those differences, then there is no difference to the student).

Having said that, it's been a while since I've been in a science class. Are you sure students aren't being taught that way?

We wouldn't have any more way of knowing about it than we would if he works on any higher level, would we?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

nebularian wrote:
You will be relieved to know, then, that this is not what evolution suggests is going on! The "tornado/junkyard" metaphor (which I have also heard described as throwing scrap metal into a wind tunnel and getting a 747) has no replication, no mutation, and no natural selection! It's a complete straw-man argument. In order for the analogy to be applicable, the junk in the junkyard would have to be able to replicate itself with some mutation rate, and there would have to be something about being a functioning machine that would enable it to better survive a tornado.

The analogy just does not work. It assumes a final product (a working machine or a 747), which evolution does not. It assumes completely random throwing together of elements, which evolution does not, and it uses a "randomizing" element (the tornado or the wind tunnel) which does not provide a mechanism for selection.

Try reading Dawkins's book _Climbing Mount Improbable_, if you'd like more information on how randomness really comes into play in evolution.

Hope that helps,

Don

(I will not take the bait. I will not take the bait. I will not take the bait...) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I want to add a little to what SeanF has already said. A scientific theory must meet three criteria:
1.) Accounts for known observations,
2.) Falsifiable,
3.) Makes predictions.
ID and YEC fail on counts 2 & 3. I have no problem with people believing in ID, but they should know its not science. ID is faith based and should not be taught as science. It should only be taught on Sundays.

You're neglecting the crucial role of natural selection. Natural selection is not random; the initial conditions may be random (mutations), but the outcome is definitely not random. Returning to your analogy, the tornado would take millions of passes through our junkyard, and each time it passes it is not allowed to harm a "perfectly functioning machine". Perhaps after the first pass, we have a perfectly functioning lever. Then on the second pass the lever impales a barrel and becomes lever with a fulcrum. Mathematically, natural selection is one of the most efficient optimizing methods available.

Sure. It may appear that God plays dice with the world, but nothing says he did not load them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-07-24 14:10 ]</font>

Here, here!

The TalkOrigins page on evolution and chance explains sthe 747 thing in more detail. In essence, random chance is only the first step, the "raw material" if you will. Evolution is the process that takes those random changes and makes them non-random. It filters out useless mutations and enhances useful ones. This greatly speeds and directs changes into viable forms. And it's completely natural in it's operation. It doesn't need an outside intelligence to work (although I would suppose that it doesn't really rule one out either).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(D'oh. Forgot the link.)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-24 14:33 ]</font>

If the theory can't be disproven, why can't it be explored (I am, of course, referring to ID and not YEC)?

But if it can't be disproven (that is, it's not falsifiable), then it's not theory, it's dogma.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Another thing to realize is that evolution does not work towards a specific final product. It only tries to find a form that's benefits the creature according to the environment it's in. Natural selection wouldn't demand that a 747 be created. But if you had a requirement for "something that flies", then it would come up with something, be it a small plane, hot-air balloon, helicopter, or something else.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I noticed. Just for the record, I wasn't trying to paraphrase Greg's intent. He might have meant whatever you took it as.

You're spending a lot of time in science circles I presume? You may feel like you are constantly defending your faith because you have placed yourself in a setting where the Bible doesn't hold up against the scrutney of its literal translation. You seem to understand that from your posts.

I appreciate that there are religious persons who can address science with other religious persons. Otherwise some of us get 'written off' as having science as our 'religion' with our 'faith' being equal and therefore arbitrarily accepted.

My belief that the scientific process will produce a better world and that 'faith' has not, compels me to share as well.

You can practice all you want, I think the issue is not practicing in a way that makes religious doctrine any part of the curriculum or an official position of the school. That can be a fine line and sometimes administrators don't get it right, sometimes religious persons don't see the harm that is there.


It's a news article, they don't know what references even means. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Actually, I think the gist is more that evolution is here to stay, not that they've done a meta-analysis of the research. Given the recent school board actions in Kansas and elsewhere, and, all the genetic research news, it seems to be a timely article.

The 'problem' you have with 'random chance' will be resolved if you learn a little more about how genes work and how they begin and evolve. 'Evolution, the Triumph of an Idea'; by Carl Zimmer; 2001, is a very good book for this information. It is one of those PBS companion series books. There are 8 pages of suggested 'further reading' in the book as well.

It isn't a 'threat'. It just doesn't stand up to scientific scrutney. I don't think anyone would object to 'exploring' any possibilities. They may not choose to investigate it themselves, but why object?

The objection is not to exploration, it is to rationalizing why ID must be so. The current arguments are supported by an incorrect premise that 'it can't be natural'. This false premise is based on a lack of knowledge of genetics, not on valid scientific grounds.


Part of the problem is poorly prepared teachers at least at the elementary school level. I've encountered some very 'confused' teachers at my son's school. But I'm working on it. If we all did, think what could be accomplished.

Eeekkk! Dare I suggest a new thread with the word God in the heading? Be careful of falling into the 'god of the gaps' problem. I don't really know what you mean by your question other than god must be working on some level we don't understand.