Top

blog

Stories

 

Rick Brattin, Who Wants Anti-Evolution Lessons In Missouri Schools: "I'm A Science Enthusiast"

Brattin argues that he is motivated to put forward this bill because he believes in science.

"This isn't preaching that God designed this," he says. "This is saying, it had to come from some sort of intelligence."

He cites the complexity of even the simplest forms of life and the molecules that make them up.

"The naysayers keep involving religion," says Brattin, who also introduced this bill last year. "This has to do with science. This is about testable data in today's world."

Here's the draft bill.

House Bill 291

Send feedback and tips to the author. Follow Sam Levin on Twitter at @SamTLevin.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
130 comments
Dart
Dart

This guy has a mental illness, seriously no one should be allowed to make laws that do not believe in evolution. I can't believe people that never read the bable force fairytale logic on the rational people. This guy gives Missouri a bad name and two steps back from getting out of red state (avg, IQ under 100 ) status and onto blue state (avg. IQ over 100 ) status, but that what the GOP (Go Out Prosperous) and Religions want to do is keep the sheep in the dark. Missouri people should stand up for them selves and ditch this Neanderthal mentality and get out of the caves. They cannot think of anything that really helps the economy, so they come up with fear and bullshit bills , because that is their real job is to raise campaign money only,(studies show they campaign 70-80% of their time, that's a part time job but most come out as millionaires?), and by screaming the gays , Latinos are coming, the Gov is going to take your guns (which anybody in their right mind knows is Ludacris)is what gets the sheep to send money. And this will go on until we get the money out of Gov. Wolfpac.com

epsps
epsps

Dover, PE already lost this case.  It will only serve to cost MO money to defend a nonsense case that they can't win.  Magic is not science.  Keep it out of the classroom.


rwfollett
rwfollett

Idiots should no longer be allowed to introduce this crap.  There should be fines, jail time, and public humiliation followed by forced learning.

mgarber
mgarber

Nonsense.   

The bill is a collection of chestnuts from the creationist jokebook, all of which have been thoroughly refuted, and many of which have since been abandoned by real creationists ("irreducible complexity" for example).

"I'm A Science Enthusiast"   ...Not by a long shot.



lizdhm
lizdhm

What is with the obsession so many Republican politicians have with bankrupting school districts? I assume that must be what this guy is after because the only result these bills ever have is to separate school districts from their money. Any politician submitting one of these bills ought to include a clause wherein they and everyone else who votes for it will be required to finance the costs of the inevitable lawsuit out of their own money, which, of course, they will lose.

beau.leeman
beau.leeman

The (9) implementation requirements of the Bill are rather stiff, and will meet immediate resistance, as in past lessor Bills. But for this Bill to have any chance whatsoever, some points within it conceptual context need be addressed. I suggest reading the Bill in its entirety, along with my ruminations.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0291I.htm

• “Analogous naturalistic process” is defined correctly, if not always applied correctly, however. It is, in fact, the only way to empirically verify a proposed prior process which culminated in an evolved formation. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult within evolutionary theory.

• “Biological evolution” is also summarized relatively well by a 105 word paragraph.

• “Biological intelligent design”, correctly stated as “a hypothesis” rather than a theory, and correctly attributed to “intelligence” rather than the singular form “an intelligence”, but incorrectly connoted “by inference” as the source of “all original species on earth”. I feel that ID can be hypothesized at various junctures, but the presumption of ID as its sole source cannot be stated as fact. It further correctly states that intelligence identity is not required or allowed, short of “present-day” [empirical] observation.

It then goes on to define “concepts inherent within the hypothesis”, summarized by (9) arguments in its favor, and which are largely inferential, as are natural precepts. These then may not be presented as fact; only as ID inferences, and must therefore be presented as such, if included in the final Bill.

In particular, I take exception with, (f) “Intelligence-directed design and construction of all original species at inception without an accompanying genetic burden is inferred rather than random mutational genetic change as a constructive mechanism.”

With (h), “The irreducible complexity of certain biological systems implies a completed design and construction at inception rather than step-by-step development.”

And with (i), “The lack of significant transitional forms between diverse species existing today and in the fossil record implies all original species were completed at inception rather than by a step-by-step development from other species.”

The term ‘all’ cannot be presumed at this point, if ever. Nor can ‘step-by-step’ be ruled out, although at some point, certain steps [genetic/ phenotypic alterations] may in fact be confirmed as directed by intelligent input, at least in part.

And finally, (4) stating that “Destiny [and other a priori defined processes] may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs is incorrect; data only within science classes. Beliefs may ensue from the data, but NOT be considered as evidentiary within science. Rewording of (4) and (9) is essential IMO.

The term ‘empirical data’ appears (15) times, essentially to emphasize its relevance in assessing the data, rather than an over-use of extrapolation [non-verifiable and non-relevant parallels], and of assumptions [both of natural and guided causations]. ID’s support is largely based on statistical improbabilities of naturally occurring building-blocks of novelty and complexity with no immediate heritable advantages, rather than a goddidit presumption. Likewise, more than chance and environmental pressures being responsible for similar events, natural causation may require more than slight adaptive alterations to produce novelty and multi-dependent complexities.

A lot to consider, but hey, the Bill is too all-conclusive to pass ‘as is’. IOW, this bill, while rightly allowing for ID as an adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory rather than in opposition to it, does need to tone down any portions that overly presume ID as (1) the only causality, and (2) as operating ex nihilo, rather than step-by-step, as the current data tends to support. ID, properly defined, is a valid science based hypothesis, which may or may not have validity.

Lastly, why have Bills such as this befallen society ad infinitum? To bring about a theocracy? BS. Or to allow teaching religion within science curricula? Not a chance, given Constitutional constraints.  No, it's to allow for a more objective and less constrained science.

dabuckna
dabuckna

http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth04.asp

The following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:

"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet."

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to teach evolution as dogma.

Peggy Keller
Peggy Keller

James, show us the scientific method-including an experiment-for proving intelligent design. We can show you one for evolution. That is why it's part of the science curriculum. Also, while you are at it, look up the definition of "bigotry" because that word? I don't think it means what you think it means.

Aubrey L. Cox
Aubrey L. Cox

No, and not only should we have Freedom of Religion but Freedom FROM Religion should be Guaranteed in America!!!

capederson
capederson

I am tired of anti-intellectuals trying to ruin this country. Why do they hate us so much?

rickk101
rickk101

Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature."

In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy.

Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run.

The ID community appeals directly to the public and to legislators using lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several announcements every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business.

The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the materialist science of evolution.

These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology.


Megan Gormley Stratton
Megan Gormley Stratton

Evolution in its base definition is gradual change over time. I don't understand why that's so hard to accept. It is scientifically proven. Things change and evolve over time and that is how the world developed.

sandmanhh
sandmanhh

What this article clearly demonstrates is what a thoroughly ignorant and dishonest person Rick Brattin is. He is NOT a enthusiast of science, as if he were he would know that the very foundational rule of science is that it can only involve NATURAL explanations for observed phenomena. The laughably misnamed "Intelligent Designer" is, by the admission of the very people who came up with the theory, including Michael Behe and other Discovery Institute fellows, a SUPERNATURAL force. QED ID is NOT science, and to make it science would mean astrology, alchemy, phrenology etc etc are also science. Do you also want your kids to learn alchemy and astrology in science class? Why not?

He is also blissfully or willfully ignorant that after the Kitzmiller trial, ID has been legally defined as creationism in different packaging, and as a religious theory and not a scientific theory, unconstitutional and illegal to teach as science. Rick Brattin seems happy with the idea of your taxpayer money being wasted on a re-run of the Kitzmiller trial - and that cost by some estimates over $4M. And a trial will take place if Rick Brattin gets his way. Rick Brattin wont care if it does come to a trial though....after all he isnt paying the bill for loosing.

Rick Brattin has achieved one thing - he has put your state on the internet map, watched by the rational world, as a place where ignorance runs wild and elected officials are dishonest and IDiotic. Personally, id see that as a badge of shame.

tasintada
tasintada

@dabuckna What is the scientific evidence against evolutionary theory? Were there a better theory (and btw, in science, theory is a fact. It has been tested and attempted to disprove by many, many scientists) or even ANY controversy, it should be taught. Unfortunately, there is not another theory. 

If there were any alternatives, they should be taught...but there is no evidence against, or alternative scientific theories. Only hopes, dreams, faith and dogma...all of which belong in the home, church or philosophy classes.

gmkjr49
gmkjr49

@capedersonMost of us dislike theories that challenge our belief systems, so it should not be any surprise that so-called "anti-intellectuals" dislike scientific theories that challenge their religious belief systems. Obviously, the more basic the challenged belief system is to their personal sense of being, the more ardently they resist any challenges. After reading through this entire thread, I have one question: Do any agnostics or atheists believe in ID, or are all ID believers also devout religionists of one stripe or another? It would stand to reason that Christian Fundamentalists would be the strongest opponents, since a basic article of their religious belief is that 'every word of the Bible is the word of God,' which leaves precious little room for contrary scientific evidence or explanation.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

Part of the problem is that biology is crippled by the pilisophical presuposition of methodological naturalism, a presuposition no other area of science is burdened with.

If Forensic scientists are presented with a body that has six bullet holes in it, they are immediatly going to infer an intelegent cause, even if they have no idea who that cause is.

If Astronomers at a radio telescope intercept a radio signal from another start system containing the first 100 prime numbers they would immediatly infer an intelegent cause, even if they have no idea who that cause is.

If Archeologists discover what looks like arrowheads, pottery shards, and stone tools, they would infer an intelegent cause, even if they have no idea who that cause is.

When Biologists look into the cell and see a computer driven machine whose operating system cointains billions of bits and millions of lines of  computer like code they infer............natural selection acting on randome mutation did it????

Sorry, something is wrong there and your average person sees it. Ridicule will not make those problems go away.

/Sorry formultiple posts, but my comments won't post unless I break it up.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

Darwanisim was a nice 19th century theory, like Aether Physics and Psychoanalysis, unfortunatly, science has passed all three of them by. Like Einsteins Standard Model, it explains some things, but comes nowhere close to explaining everything. It explains very nicely why I look different from my parents and why bacteria become resistant to penicillin. It does very poorly however in explaining how a reptilian lung becomes an avian lung and how a bacterial flagelum came about in a bacteria that did not have one, especially when that explanation must be expressed in terms of DNA code.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

The debate has philisophical implications for both sides and those on the ID side ARE raising SERIOUS objections that Darwanists can only mock. Unfortunatly, ridicule is neither an argument or an answer and the lack of answers to those objections is in part why so many in the public are sceptical of Darwanisim, they may not be able to verbilize those problems, but they can see there is a problem.

People know that copying errors produces broken computers and they've been told that DNA is like computer code. With nothing more than that the average person can see that Darwanisim has serious problems.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

To simplify the objection to something more easily visualized: Lets say I have a computer with a copy of Windows 95 on it. I tell the computer to copy the OS from one drive to another, then reboot from the second drive. It then copies the OS from the second drive back to the first and reboots from the first hard drive. It then repeats this process.

Now, how long do I have to wait for natural selection acting on random mutation (Copying errors) to produce a copy of Windows 7 64-bit? Any sane person will tell you that you never will, bceause random chance, with or without natural selection, cannot produce meaningfull new information. If we know that the process will not work in a machine made of scilicon and steel, why should we believe it will work in a mcahine made of Oxygen, Carbon, and Hydrogen? DNA is computer code, exceptwith four possibilities per bit as opposed to two.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

There is the mathmatical probability objection based on DNA. This objection convinced lifelong Atheist Antony Flew that god, though not nessisarily the Christian god, existed. To put the problem VERY briefly, mathmatically it is impossible for the information in DNA to have arisen by natural selection acting on random mutation, There is neither enough time or enough matter in the universe to go through even a fraction of the possibilities. Out best evidence shows thatyou need half a million base pairs to get the simplist life so this problem goes all the way back to the first life from non-life.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

The question is, what is the evidence? People like Behe have raised many SCIENTIFIC objections to Neo-Darwinian Theory.

Behe has his famous objection of Irreducable Complexity, an objection that is of yet unrefuted. people like Miller have refuted a caracature of the objection, but the original objection still stands. How do you get a biological machine with multiple parts from gradual natural seelction acting on random mutation when that machine is non-functional without ALL the parts. Not only that, where do the assembly instructions come from? A half built couch in my living room is no use to me or anyone else.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

"In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy."

And in practics Darwanisim is used as a tool by fundamnetalist Atheists, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, to advance their Atheistic religious worldview.

BOTH sides can be accused of having religious motivation so your whole post is nothing but a cop-out attempt. If you don't want ID in the classroom because of the religious implications for Theists, then you also have to strip out Darwanisim because of the religious implications for Atheists.

The problem is much worse for the Atheists though. If Darwanisim is true, theists still have the Big Bang and the Fine Tuning of the Universe for life, both of which are serious blows to the Atheistic worldview, blows of which Atheists have only ben able to muster very weak responces. If Darwanisim is shown to not be possible based on our understanding of how life works, then Atheisim has no scientific leg to stand on.

DocBill
DocBill

@rickk101 All too true!  There are no ID "researchers."  Not a single one.  ID is based on the assertions of two people:  Dembski (explanatory filter) and Behe (irreducible complexity).  Neither proponent has done any research on the subject.  Dembski retracted the "explanatory filter" as unworkable and every single example of "irreducible complexity" that Behe has proposed has been dismissed.  So, there's nothing there.

Biblical creationism became "scientific" creationism to get around a Supreme Court ruling and "scientific" creationism became "intelligent design" creationism to get around another Supreme Court ruling, only to get dismissed as religion by a federal court in 2005.

So far Brattin has demonstrated he knows nothing about science, nothing about education, nothing about the law and nothing about politics.  I sure hope he has a Plan B for his career because I don't think this one's going to work out for him!

dabuckna
dabuckna

@tasintada @dabuckna

Since it's evolution (and not intelligent design/creation) that is taught in public school science classes, what _is_ the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for macroevolution?

List even one example of macroevolution (not microevolution, which is just variation) from a biology textbook, or from the scientific literature. By macroevolution I mean vertical evolution aka information-building evolution, where a GAIN of genetic information has been observed/proven. 


eg. 

1. Stephen Jay Gould’s "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (2002) 
 2. James W. Valentine's "On the Origin of Phyla" (2004) 
 3. Jeffrey S. Levinton’s 2nd edition of "Macroevolution" (2001) 
 4. "Macroevolution" chapter (chapter 22) in Douglas J. Futuyma's 2nd edition of Evolution, 2009. 

How many examples of macroevolution are listed in total? (in the 4 books) 

gmkjr49
gmkjr49

@capedersonGiven the fact that it has taken tens of thousands of smart and hard working people over 150 years to develop the current thinking about the theory and mechanisms of evolution, we should not be surprised that less informed people prefer a simpler explanation for the complexity of biological and geological processes, especially when their world view and belief system is largely shaped by meta-physical and religious beliefs that are not subject to test by the Scientific Method.

evanhlister
evanhlister

@Benjamin72 

Other areas of the natural sciences do assume natural explanations by default.  Sciences which study human behavior obviously look to intelligent decision-making; after all, they are dealing with human actions.  However, an astronomer is not going to assume that a solar system containing planets stably orbiting a star is formed with some purpose in mind.  He would consider a prime number broadcast to be from an intelligent origin.  However, this is still a naturalistic explanation.  He is not assuming a supernatural source, but rather aliens which, although we have no evidence to believe they exist, would presumably still obey our laws of physics.

Please look for a source of intelligence in chemistry, optics, geology, or any other natural science which does not primarily deal with human actions.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper

@Benjamin72 Your argument makes no sense.  You are misconstruing man made things with natural and therefore is a false analogy.

evanhlister
evanhlister

@Benjamin72  

Hi Menjamin72,

Your example does not include natural selection or a population, which are both central to the theory of evolution, and .  For it to be relevant you would need to have many computers, and after each transfer you would need to duplicate the code of the more successful computers from those of the less successful ones.  Of course, the model will function or not function if given the right parameters. As the number of computers and the number of transfers approaches infinity, you will generate more and more functional operating systems.  Whether those parameters are at all relevant to the evolution of life is questionable.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper

@DocBill @rickk101 They also like to fall back on Berringer, who was fooled into thinking sculptures made to resemble fossils with biblical phrases and names on them.  Despite running into one that had his name on it, Berringer refused to acknowledge the hoax he found himself in.

Steve
Steve

@dabuckna @tasintada  Just why on Earth would you think that the evolution of a species should translate into a "gain" of genetic information (whatever that means... longer DNA?) rather than just changing or adapting to an environment?


It is not the most clever or strong or big or complex species that survive over the very long run, but the most resilient ones. And simplicity goes a long way in terms of resilience.

dabuckna
dabuckna

@evanhlister @dabuckna @tasintada


http://creation.com/does-gene-duplication-provide-the-engine-for-evolution


*

http://creation.com/question-evolution

[snip]

The adaptation of bacteria to feed on nylon waste (’nylonase’) involved two point mutations that are both adaptive in an existing gene. The mutations sequentially decrease the specificity of an existing esterase enzyme, enabling it to hydrolyze the same type of bond in a slightly different chemical, a nylon waste compound. This is not proof that such random changes in genes created aldolases/esterases in the first place, or the myriad other distinctly different genes, gene regulatory networks, metabolic pathways involving multiple enzymes, fantastically sophisticated nano-machines, etc. 


[snip]

dabuckna
dabuckna

@evanhlister @dabuckna @tasintada

http://creation.com/question-evolution

The adaptation of bacteria to feed on nylon waste (’nylonase’) involved two point mutations that are both adaptive in an existing gene. The mutations sequentially decrease the specificity of an existing esterase enzyme, enabling it to hydrolyze the same type of bond in a slightly different chemical, a nylon waste compound. This is not proof that such random changes in genes created aldolases/esterases in the first place, or the myriad other distinctly different genes, gene regulatory networks, metabolic pathways involving multiple enzymes, fantastically sophisticated nano-machines, etc. 

[snip]


http://creation.com/does-gene-duplication-provide-the-engine-for-evolution

evanhlister
evanhlister

@dabuckna@tasintada

Hello Dabuckna,

Two quick points:

1)The generation of new gene functions has been observed in labs.  A few examples are the development of penicillin resistance and nylon-biproduct metabolism in bacteria under selective pressure.These involve gain-of-function mutations, which researchers have been able to sequence to confirm that they are indeed novel.I do not consider it unreasonable that the mutation of many individual genes can result in the generation of a new species.Obviously this would take a long time (longer than most NIH grants).In any case, a gain in genetic information has been observed.

2) What would you consider to be convincing evidence?  It is not going to be possible (or ethical) to recreate the evolution of man from earlier forms of life, just as it is not possible to recreate the formation of the solar system.However, there are other forms of evidence than direct observation.If there were not, then it would be very difficult to convict a suspect of a crime.

dabuckna
dabuckna

@tasintada


Nothing in the evolutionlist article demonstrates that a GAIN/INCREASE in genetic information has been observed/proven. If a scientist did, he'd win a Nobel Prize.  Even young earth creationists accept speciation. But macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full

So where's the evidence for macroevolution???

And BTW, the 4 textbooks above (Gould, Valentine, Levinton, Futuyma) list ZERO examples of macroevolution. ZERO. NONE.

Why do you suppose that is?

See also:

http://crev.info/



tasintada
tasintada

@dabuckna @tasintada Simply look up the studies that have proved macro-evolution in laboratory experiments. I will do so later if you don't have time right now.

Still, what is the other viable theory? If there is one, please enlighten us as to what it is and go claim your Nobel prize.

lizdhm
lizdhm

@Benjamin72

"How is it improbable to be shot?"

How many times have you been shot?

" It happens almost hourly in this country making it exceedingly probable."

You are conflating, a group of people and an individual are not the same thing. It is indeed very unlikely for an individual to be shot."

The fact that you do not understand that evolution occurs in populations, which are, you know, GROUPS, discounts any chance you have of ever being taken seriously by anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of evolution.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper

@Benjamin72 You keep confusing natural processes with mechanical ones.  Sure, life RESEMBLES a machine, but it is not.  It does not need some supreme being to make it work.  Never mind the fact that no engineer in their right mind would ever construct a machine with all the issues of any living being.  

The fact still remains that you have NO PROOF.  Just because something exists does not mean you can make that highly improbable leap to say something built it.  You make the same mistakes as that asshat on America Unearthed who ALWAYS assumes that there is no way archeological sites in America could be built by Native Americans so they HAVE to be built by Europeans.  Your letting your personal bias throw out all other evidence.  DNA is not a computer even if it acts vaguely similar.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

"rocks can't write"

Wow, wonderfull job of suming up the problem. Going to have to save that.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

" It is also likely that the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have life thanks to the existence of elements necessary for life to form."

Go to a junkyard and look around. There you will have all the parts to build at least a dozen working cars. Without an intelegent agent piecing those parts together, those junked cars will remain non-working junk.

The problem is NOT the raw materials. The problem is the DNA computer code nessisary for the system to function. Where did it come from? You are avoiding this question and trying to change the subject.

 How do you get information from an unintelegent cause? That is the fundamental question that must be answered. There is no known mechanisim that can be demonstrated. The best you can get is patterns, but you won't get information like we see in the cell. You also do not get new information. All mutations we see in nature today are the result of rearanging or breaking preexisting information, none are the result of new information being added.......except when it is a scientist doing it.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

"Scientists have formed DNA molecules already in the lab, even basic cells."

Than you for proving my point, creating life requires intelligent intervention. In this case, a scientist.

Actually though, while scientisits today do manipulate DNA, they have yet to create life from scratch. They manipulate pre-existing life.

" It is highly probable that it can arise in other places naturally, since it already has happened here on Earth and Mars."

More circular logic. You are assuming that life arose naturally on Earth when that is the very question we are discussing.

From a mathmatical perspective, we know it didn't. About 500,000 bae pairs of DNA computer code is needed for the simplist life. There is neither enough time or enough matter in the universe to go through even a fraction of the possible arangements to get you the first life. The math is not hard to do, but the numbers get very large very qickly.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

"We havent moved from this planet much so we do not know where else it may have or still does exist."

We are not talking about life on other planets, we are talking about life on this planet.

"Science has discovered that life is VERY tenacious, existing in highly improbable places such as deep thermal vents."

That is not the question being asked. The question being asked is  where did the didgital information encoded in DNA come from and can natural selection acting on randommutation account for that information? From a purely mathmatical standpoint the answeris "no".

"This is not a sign of some creator, just that life always finds a way. "

Circular logic again, you are assuming there is no creator and assuming that life can find a way. 10,000 years of evolutionary pressure and the human imune system has yet to find a solution for malaria.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

"How is it improbable to be shot?"

How many times have you been shot?

" It happens almost hourly in this country making it exceedingly probable."

You are conflating, a group of people and an individual are not the same thing. It is indeed very unlikely for an individual to be shot.

"once again it is probable that we will find it IF we are listening in the right spots and at the right times which is why we have radio telescopes pointed up."

How will you know if that radio signal is the result of an intalegent cause. If billions of bits of computer code within the cell will not convince you, then why would a radio signal containing perhaps only a few thousand bits at most convince you that the cause was an intelegent agent?

"If anyone is applying circular logic, it is yourself."

A Bald Assertion. You have yet to show where and how.

"The facts remains it is likely that life forms since we have found fossilized life from Mars."

We have found EVIDENCE of fossilized life, we are still not 100% sure.

You are trying to change the subject. Even if there was a rain forest on Mars that would not change the question, where did the didgital information encoded in DNA come from?

Quedude
Quedude

@smdrpepper @Benjamin72 You're asuming what's to be shown by evidence, not say so, real science goes beyond just so stories. To explain DNA, encrypted instructions for cell machinery to make us for example, you need to start with a conscious intelligence to pick and place the symbols to transmit the desired meaning. You can't get a sufficient cause in matter alone, because rocks can't write

smdrpepper
smdrpepper

@Benjamin72 Whatever your smoking, I want some.  How is it improbable to be shot?  It happens almost hourly in this country making it exceedingly probable.  IF there is a radio signal, of which none have been found other than those that naturally occur in space, thanks to the size of the universe, once again it is probable that we will find it IF we are listening in the right spots and at the right times which is why we have radio telescopes pointed up.  If anyone is applying circular logic, it is yourself.  The facts remains it is likely that life forms since we have found fossilized life from Mars.  We havent moved from this planet much so we do not know where else it may have or still does exist.  Science has discovered that life is VERY tenacious, existing in highly improbable places such as deep thermal vents.  This is not a sign of some creator, just that life always finds a way.  Scientists have formed DNA molecules already in the lab, even basic cells.  It is highly probable that it can arise in other places naturally, since it already has happened here on Earth and Mars.  It is also likely that the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have life thanks to the existence of elements necessary for life to form.  It  may only be microbial like what once lived on Mars (although there is a chance it still exists there an we havent found it as yet), but it is still life, existing without some supreme being.

Benjamin72
Benjamin72

Nope, you are applying circular logic. You are assuming life arose from natural unintelegent causes when that is the very question we are discussing.

For that matter, how would the radio signal from the far away star system be man made? Would you assume the signal was created by natural causes? You'd be laughed at for saying such.

William A. Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" goes over how we intuitivly determine if something was designed or not.

1. High improbability.

2. An independently given patern.

The forensic scientists know that someone being shot once, let alone six times is a VERY improbable event. If the person was only shot once then perhaps the possibility of an acident should be considered. However, six shots, all of which hit the now dead person is an independently given patern, that patern being that if someone wants someone else dead they shoot them multiple times.

Astronomers at radio telescopes get all sorts of signals, virtually all of them can be accounted for by natural causes, Pulsears, supernova, etc. A signal containing the first 100 prime numbers is just as unlikely as any other. Howver the independently given patern is the presence of only prime numbers in the signal.

I could go on, but if I go much longer this won't post.

Now Trending

St. Louis Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...