Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
281

<p>There are in fact some differences between the science conducted from a Darwinian Perspective and from the perspective of Intelligent Design. They could be summed up by referring to them as coming from a ‘bottom-up’ approach in Darwinian biology and ‘top-down’ in biology conducted from a premise of design. They are not mutually exclusive, yet the approach is different. Some of the distinctions have been seen in research into “junk-DNA” and Cancer research. </p>

<p>Below is an example of the difference in ‘junk’ DNA:</p>

<p>Take, for example, research on the vast regions of vertebrate genomes that do not code for proteins. From a neo-Darwinian perspective, DNA mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution because DNA encodes proteins that determine the essential features of organisms. Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades as random evolutionary noise or “junk DNA.” From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much “junk.” It is much more likely that noncoding regions have functions that we simply haven’t discovered yet.
Recent research shows that “junk DNA” does, indeed, have previously unsuspected functions. Although that research was done in a Darwinian framework, its results came as a complete surprise to people trying to ask Darwinian research questions. The fact that “junk DNA” is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf[/url]”>http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

282

<p>FountainSiren, you said this:
“I think it’s wonderful that natural selection and evolution has resulted in the ability of humans to believe in a creator, to love, to hope, to cherish” (quoting my post above)
and added: </p>

<p>‘Wonderful indeed if true, but you don’t seem to be saying that. You call it an ability to believe, not a reality.’</p>

<p>Note the parallels in the original construction.</p>

<p>The ability of humans TO (believe in a creator)
TO (love)
TO (hope) (etc.)</p>

<p>I <em>know</em>–it’s a fact–that humans can believe in a creator.
I <em>know</em>—it’s a fact–that humans can love
etc.</p>

<p>Do I <em>know</em> in the same way that there is a god? (or gods?) Nope. No direct evidence. </p>

<p>Is there direct evidence of an “intelligent designer”? Nope. Even your about “junk DNA” merely picks up one person’s theory. Lots of evolutionary scientists never even called it “junk” and actively wondered what it was there for. An “ID” approach doesn’t change that.</p>

<p>Kindness and caring are thought, BTW, by many evolutionary biologists to have major evolutionary and survival benefits. No one claims ants, for example, can love, but they sure do a great job of caring for one another.</p>

283

<p><a href=“http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm[/url]”>http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is also a work by Jonathan Wells</p>

<p>'Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. "</p>

<p>Do you know the Father of which he refers?</p>

284

<p>

This is the one part of atheism that I could never understand. To me there is absolutely direct evidence of a God - the fact that the universe exists is direct proof. No matter how you think that the universe got to its present state, there is no scientific explanation as to how the origins of the universe came to be. In fact, the only science that we have tells us that there must be something supernatural at play - that natural laws do not allow for “something” to be created from “nothing”. That being the case, it seems quite intuitive (at least to me) that there must be a supernatural “force” involved with the original creation of something out of nothing.</p>

285

<p>Jonathon Wells, too, is quite forthcoming in his public declarations of intent, saying on one occasion that through prayers he was convinced that he should devote his life to destroying Darwinism. Wells is a follower of Rev. Moon.</p>

286

<p>Oh my,</p>

<p>Do we now live in a world where people of faith have to hide that faith from the thought police in order to function in this brave new [PC] world? Is it a letter of shame to publicly pray?</p>

<p>Is this the new liberalism?</p>

<p>Is there something wrong per se with a person who believes in god (in fact; not just for rhetorical purposes as some seem to)?</p>

<p>How damning is it nowadays to believe in something greater than yourself? Should you be “outted” so that people will know you are not to be trusted to do science?</p>

<p>What a monstrous web we weave.</p>

<p>I think it’s sad…even at 17, that there is such meanness and hatred. I have been mischaracterized repeatedly on this thread, with no retractions, I suppose, because my ideas are “wrong”. Oh my god, I just remembered, I’ve even prayed in public—there goes my career in research.</p>

287

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>Then, is love real, or simply a rhetorical device to explain a genetic/environmental pre-disposition?</p>

<p>It would make a lot of difference to a whole lot of people; although, maybe not the real smart ones.</p>

288

<p>DId I judge…no…I gave information from your Scientist’s own papers…how is that wrong? The scientist you quote from…I am not allowed to use his quotes either?</p>

<p>Those were his words. I passed no judgement. Where did I pass judgement?</p>

<p>My, but you are defensive.</p>

<p>I stated facts. He is a follower of the Unification Church. Is that being Judgemental? How so?</p>

<p>Jeesh…</p>

289

<p>“but you are defensive”</p>

<p>Not at all, I’m just not certain in which way his prayers should affect the outcome of his science. The science is either judged as science or as a subjective examination of the person who conducts the science. If you like, show how his religious practice has corrupted his science, but it seems a little much to bring up his religion in order to stir the waters of bigotry.</p>

<p>I’m no Scientologist and I don’t really know anything about them; I assume like most people, they are trying to lead good lives more or less: what atrocities are they responsible for anyhow? I know that there’s something different about them, but I thought we were celebrating difference these days.</p>

<p>I remember reading about the ACLU defending the KKK in Skokie; now we have their liberal heirs outing a scientist–doing science–as having violated the “practice no religion act” so sacred to a certain kind of liberal.</p>

290

<p>He studied at the Unification Seminary. We need to have all the educational facts of a scientist you are quoting. It is all relavent.</p>

291

<p>I am just stating facts. Why, do you have a problem with the Unification Church. He went to theology college there. Its a fact. What scares you about facts. how is that “outing” him. Its a fact.</p>

<p>He was also at Yale, And at Berkely. Facts all.</p>

292

<p>If Joe McCarthy were alive today, I’m sure he would be standing up in a whooping round of applause [he had a fetish for “the facts” to]:</p>

<p>“Are you now, or have you ever been a Scientologist?”</p>

<p>Back then, you were suspect if you worked for the government, now it’s working as a scientist (though as I recall, Joe was a bit interested in the beliefs of the scientists of his day too).</p>

<p>Delightful, really.</p>

<p>Bye, I have to go out and play!!</p>

293

<p>He states himself is a Unification Follower. How is that a problem for you two. Did I say anything bad about the Unification Church. I made no judgements, yet you compare me to McCarthy. That is rich.</p>

<p>It is just wonderful when people are shown facts of someone they themselves quote. Thank you for introducing me to Wells. It kind of fun learning all about your Scientist. Hey, he went to Yale, same as our President!!! How McCartyhist of me!!!</p>

<p>His prayers affect his science because he was told, his own admission, through his prayer to destroy Darwinism. His words. Not mine. That is how it is relavent. Do you not read the words of your own Scientist, the own you quoted to me?</p>

294

<p>'Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. "</p>

<p>Wells brought religion into his science, not me…but will you not discuss his words, his Father’s (Moons) advice? He mentioned his Unification Church, he mentioned Moon, he mentioned praying, he mentioned it…Wells brought in his religion, do you deny that he did? HIS WORDS< my goodness, blame me for quoting your scientist with his own words. And not out of context either.</p>

<p>How that makes me McCarthy, I have no clue. Did I say being part of the Unificiation Church was bad? Where did I say that? </p>

<p>I just quoted your own Scientist whom you used to defend ID. Sorry.</p>

295

<p>citygirlsmom, I just want you to know I really like your posts and the links you provide.</p>

296

<p>Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. </p>

<p>by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA </p>

<p>At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father’s many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things. </p>

<p>He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin’s theory that living things originated without God’s purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God’s involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination. </p>

<p>Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.</p>

297

<p>continued:</p>

<p>As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th- century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design. God created the cosmos with a plan in mind. This affirmation is among the most basic in all of Christianity (and other theistic religions as well, including Unificationism). And that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God. </p>

<p>According to Darwin’s theory, however, the whole history of life is the outcome of random variations and survival of the fittest. Although some features of living organisms (such as eyes) appear to be designed, Darwin claimed that this is only an illusion. Living things are the result of an essentially directionless process, and we are merely the accidental by-product of blind natural forces which did not have us in mind. When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism."</p>

<p>there is more…I expect no response regarding your Scientiests own writings about religion…</p>

<p>Opps, I guess I outed him by sharing his writings…and were did I make any judgements again? Where?</p>

298

<p>

No, you made no judgements, just cut and pasted something, apparently undigested. The difference between a poster like you, and one like, say, FountainSiren. So, CGM, expound a bit. What exactly do you find objectional in this treatise?</p>

299

<p>That a man who says he an objective scientist and shows what he claims as science, decided years before he even started studying biololgy, was that through prayer and the Father, he mission in life was to destroy Darwinism. So much for objectivity.</p>

<p>If I make a jugement, I am McCarthy, if I don’t I am lazy. And I did digest it, very throughly, but I knew, if I commented about my problems with it, I would get trashed. And when I just stated facts, heaven forbid, I was called all sorts of things. I thought if I just posted the writings of the same Scientist FountainSiren so proudly posted, with no judgements, it would speak for itself.</p>

<p>Someone quoted me Einstein, I showed other quotes from Einstien that were more consistent with Einsteins beliefs. There was no need to say anything.</p>

<p>And, I needed to show the whole piece by Wells to show I took nothing out of context or misquoted him. FountainSiren showed me a quote by Wells that was science, and if FountainSiren was going to use this Scientist to support ID, and to show it was fundamentalynot Faith based or religious, I wanted to learn about that scientist, and I discoverd, what I know, is relevent that Scientist’s motivation. It wasn’t knowledge. It was to “destroy evil Darwinism”.</p>

<p>I was then accused of “outing” the scientist by bringing in his religion. I never knew about his religion until I read a paper he wrote. Well’s brought in his religion, and quite obviously, not me, yet, I was accused of bringing in something irrelavent. So I needed to post the whole piece, from Well’s mouth, to show I did not “out” Wells, he outed himself, and quite proudly, I might add.</p>

<p>So, do not tell me I don’t read, and that FountainSiren does. I showed him some truths about his Scientist, some facts, some of his own words, and I was called names. With no acknowledgment of Well’s own writings of his desire, with the encouragement and teachings of Rev. Moon, to bring theology into science. And yet, I keep reading from posters that religion is not involved in ID, yet the very scientist that is writing about it says he wants to bring theology back into science. </p>

<p>And why I did show the writings, the writings themselves were ignored, yet I was attacked for stating facts.</p>

300

<p>And FountainSiren, Wells, stated very clearly, after his prayers, discussion with the Father Rev Moon, it was his plan to destroy darwinism. destry it. Well’s own words. That is why what he prays for matters. He said all this. He said it. He proclaimed it. That is why it matters.</p>

<p>He declared before he studied biology, with lesson from Rev Moon, that the evil of darwinism must be destroyed. </p>

<p>Can we trust the objectivity of someone who makes such a declaration? It was his goal in life to refute evolution. Before he even really studied it.</p>

<p>Is that the objective scientist you quoted me? Tell me, what am I not understanding of Well’s own declaration of his own prayers and discussions with Rev Moon and his own statement his battle was to destroy Darwinism? </p>

<p>Do you not believe your own scientist mission in life after much daily prayer and lesson and his own words?</p>

<p>I didn’t look for Well’s religion. To me, I was actually shocked to see it so “out there”.</p>