Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

[JWI]

Paul of Eugene posted a photo of a whale skeleton with the supposed hip bones.

When I argued that some believe these bones are used in reproduction, and submitted a link stating so from a University, PoE argued back that the Humpback whale does not have these bones, so therefore they could not be used for reproduction.

Putting aside the fact that this is a different type of whale altogether and should be expected to have differences...

Could not the same argument be used against evolution??

Shouldn't all whales have these bones?

Of course you will say no.

But perhaps only some whales have these bones for reproduction, while others do not.

Penguins are birds. They cannot fly, but they can swim. Robins are birds. They can fly, but are not known as swimmers. Birds are different from one another, so why can't whales be??

So, this is the dishonesty and deceit of evolution. All evidence contrary to evolution is simply dismissed, not because it does not represent evidence, but because it is a foregone conclusion that evolution happened, therefore there can be no real evidence against it.

Evolutionists do not have open minds. They cannot even consider for one second any evidence against evolution. They are not scientific at all.

You dismiss the evidence I have presented from Creationist and ID websites. I am sure you are intelligent. But I would bet you are not qualified in any way to judge who is presenting the truth.

No, you blindly accept any supposed evidence or argument from evolutionists without proof.

I bet the truth be known, like Dr. Patterson, there is not one thing about evolution that you really know.

At least he was honest enough to admit it.

 

[UTEOTW]

JWI

No response to the mischaracterization the ICR did to Britten in your link above?

"What a joke. You demand "positive, testible, falsifiable, demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design from primary sources".

Evolution cannot be tested. It has never been demonstrated whatsoever after tens of thousands of experiments. "

I have given you many examples in the past of evidence for common descent and how it could be tested and falsified. Since you seem to like to just ignore replies and post the same false assertions over and over without ever addressing the evidence against your assertion, I am going to be lazy this time.

Here is a discussion of vestigal structures including how you would falsify the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges

Here is a discussion of atavisms including how you would falsify the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

Here is a discussion of molecular vestiges including how you would falsify the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges

Here is a discussion of ontogeny including how you would falsify the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny

Here are discussions of biogeography including how you would falsify the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#present_biogeography
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#past_biogeography

There are a total of 29 of these. Rather than listing them all, you can just go here and read them for yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"And many have said so."

No links to where the quotes can be read in their orignal context. With your history of false quotes, no need to even read them.

And we are all still waiting for your positive, testible, falsifiable, demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design from primary sources. I don't know what it is you could possibly want to teach.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Paul of Eugene posted a photo of a whale skeleton with the supposed hip bones.

When I argued that some believe these bones are used in reproduction, and submitted a link stating so from a University."

You never even tried to address my response. Let's see, what was it...

That would be fine and dandy if "vestigal" meant "useless." Unluckily for you, it does not. It means that it no longer serves its original function and generally implies that it has degenerated.

So let's look at the vestigal whale pelvis. It is now simply used as an attachment point for some minor muscles. But look at the design of the pelvis. A pelvis is a very complex piece that normally fascilitates walking, primarily, but also is involved in many other functions. The pelvis of the whale has lost all of these functions yet still maintains a complexity far greater than needed for its modern reduced role. If the whale had been intelligently designed from scratch, then it would be logical to assume that the anchor for these muscles would have been designed for that specific task. But instead we that, as expected in evolution, an existing part has been recycled to be used in a new though reduced task. That it still retains the characteristics to be recognized as a pelvis shows us its evolutionary origins. You have chosen a bad example.

Not only have you chosen a bad example, but your obfuscation becomes more apparent. YOu have raised here a red herring to distract from the question that goes back to the OP. If you wish to teach ID/YE, just what is it that you wish to teach? Tell us how you recognize intelligent design as opposed to unintelligent design.(You just gave us a good example of unintellignet design.) Tell us what structures could not possibly have been the result of evolutionary processes and support your assertion. No out of context quotes. No secondary sources. No incredulity. Give us your positive case for design that is testible and falsifiable.

Oh, yeah. Now I remember. This is an example of UNintelligent design. Great example for evolution because an old part is being recycled for something new. Bad example for intelligent design because said part is way overdesigned for its function. Why make something as complex as a pelvis when all you really need is a process. And apparently you don't even really need that since some whales get along fine without it.

 

[JWI]

UTE

I am not going to read all those articles. So I read one. It went on and on about all these so called vestigial organs and structures.

Even you are aware that many organs and structures deemed vestigial have been found to have important functions later on.

But what?? Don't worry. Evolution has this covered too.

"This prediction is not falsified by finding a complex or essential function for the presumed vestigial structure. Should data of this sort be found, the structure merely becomes an example of parahomology (considered in prediction 3.1) or, more likely, an example of inefficient design (considered in prediction 3.5). Observations that would be truly inconsistent with the concept of vestigiality are given above. More detailed and specific explanations of how to demonstrate that the human appendix is not vestigial are given in the Vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix FAQ"

So, after going to great length to point out that there are vestigial organs, and these prove evolution, the theory says that if these organs are found to be useful that they still prove evolution.

That is downright comical. Only an evolutionists is silly enough to call that science.

When I was a kid we used to play a game where we flipped coins. It was called:

"Heads I win, Tails you lose"

Perfectly describes evolution. What a joke and a fraud.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

....That might make it more clear.

Yes it does. Please allow me to amend my last statement:


You are blowing some thick smoke there Bro. UTE.
When JWI had made such a statement you reamed him for it.

And personally, Brother UTE. I don't think your ongoing conversation with Brother JWI shows you in the best light.

 

[UTEOTW]

"You dismiss the evidence I have presented from Creationist and ID websites. I am sure you are intelligent. But I would bet you are not qualified in any way to judge who is presenting the truth. "

The evidence is not just dismissed. Additional data is presented that refutes the claims on the websites you link to or spam from.

On the other hand, no matter how many of the refutations we present, you assert the same things over and over without even trying to address the opposing argument. You pretend as if it does not exist.

You do make a good point though. None of us here are evolutionary biologists. Well, I actually think there is one lurking around. So none of us are in authoritive positions to judge the laterial.

However, I do have reading comprehension. So I can judge somethings. Like the link you made on the last page to the ICR. When I follow throug to the source that they cite and discover that they have given an incomplete and misleading report on what was said in the paper, that is easy to judge. I do not need special training to understand what was being said. And the lack of truthfulness really hurts their credibility.

Same thing with all the quotes. I may not have the knwoeldge to judge the claims right off and intelligently. But I have enough reading comprehension skills to know that when I find the original and it means something totally different that someone is trying to pull a fast one. And once again, when the argument being advanced requires a dishonest treatment of the source, I find it unlikely to be valuable and reliable.

Remember what I have said before, it was the inability of YE sources to honestly treat the material that led me away from YE to begin with.

 

[UTEOTW]

" So I read one. It went on and on about all these so called vestigial organs and structures.

Even you are aware that many organs and structures deemed vestigial have been found to have important functions later on."

You did not read the post above yours, did you? Vestigal does not mean that it has no function at all. You have to use the right definitions.

vestigial characters A vestigial character is reduced and rudimentary compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. The most extreme test for vestigiality is to remove the character and observe the organism's viability and reproductive success. If these remain unchanged, the character is definitively vestigial. However, vestigial characters can certainly have functions; non-functionality is not a requirement.

from the same link as above

Since your premise is not right, your conclusions that you use to address the claims are not correct either.

At least you read one. It is a start.

"I am not going to read all those articles."

Didn't you post a link to a 14 chapter book a couple of days ago?

You post a lot of links. If you expect them to be read, the least you could do is read the replies to them and the occasional links that you are given.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Oh, yeah. Now I remember. This is an example of UNintelligent design. Great example for evolution because an old part is being recycled for something new. Bad example for intelligent design because said part is way overdesigned for its function. Why make something as complex as a pelvis when all you really need is a process. And apparently you don't even really need that since some whales get along fine without it.

I had a look at some whale anatomy material. What UTEOTW calls pelvic bones in whales aren't too impressive. It takes quite a bit of imagination to say that they are the same as the pelvic bones of a land creature. I am not impressed.

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Oh, yeah. Now I remember. This is an example of UNintelligent design. Great example for evolution because an old part is being recycled for something new.

Even if we were to allow for directed theistic evolution or even say that GOD only waited for evolution to take its course I think that to call GOD's creatures the result of "UNintelligent design" is blasphemy.

Doubtless UTEOTW didn't intend to blaspheme. Please pray for him.

A.F.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I had a look at some whale anatomy material. What UTEOTW calls pelvic bones in whales aren't too impressive. It takes quite a bit of imagination to say that they are the same as the pelvic bones of a land creature. I am not impressed."

Not so much imagination as one might think. Here is a drawing of such a pelvis and associate leg bones from a whale dissection in the 19th century.

A larger view.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/ENLRGRT2.JPG

A different view.

http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/hind-limbs.gif

And text from the dissection.

Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures.

Struthers, John, M.D., Professor of Anatomy in the University of Aberdeen. (1881) "On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of The Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus)." Journal of Anatomy and Physiology (London), Vol. 15, p. 141-321.

More examples.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG
http://www.sheldonbrown.org/journal/peggys-cove/images/whale-pelvis.jpg
http://www.cortezchronicles.com/graf/ribright.jpg

 

[JWI]

Here is the very interesting story of a man who absolutely believed in evolution. His major in college was biology. He never questioned evolution at all and completely believed real scientific evidence supported it.

Shortly thereafter he came to Christ and was saved. At this point he became a Theological Evolutionist. He was still completely convinced that evolution was true.

But somewhere along the line he was confronted by the contradictions between science and the Bible. He made an in-depth study of the subject.

He became convinced through research that not only was evolution false and non-scientific, but that the six 24 hour day creation account in Genesis is completely true.

Enough of an intro. I would hope you TEs would at least take a look at this book.

http://www.present-truth.org/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2000.htm

 

[UTEOTW]

"Even if we were to allow for directed theistic evolution or even say that GOD only waited for evolution to take its course I think that to call GOD's creatures the result of "UNintelligent design" is blasphemy."

It should be clear from context that the statment meant that the structure was the result of natural processes because the form fits what we would expect from natural processes and does not fit what we would expect from purposeful, original design.

I have stated often that I think that God set up the laws of this universe, including those that govern evolution, perfectly to accomplish His will.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

"It should be clear from context...."

Clear as mud.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I have stated often that I think that God set up the laws of this universe, including those that govern evolution, perfectly to accomplish His will.

Yes, you have said as much. Don't expect lurkers to follow you though. Were an unsaved person to drop in and see your statement about "UNintelligent design" it would almost certainly be taken in a way you did not intend. If GOD's people can take a quote out of context then certainly others can as well.

A.F.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW said,

You do make a good point though. None of us here are evolutionary biologists. Well, I actually think there is one lurking around. So none of us are in authoritive positions to judge the laterial.

However, I do have reading comprehension. So I can judge somethings. Like the link you made on the last page to the ICR. When I follow throug to the source that they cite and discover that they have given an incomplete and misleading report on what was said in the paper, that is easy to judge. I do not need special training to understand what was being said. And the lack of truthfulness really hurts their credibility.

Wow. For one second I was going to thank you for finally admitting that I made a valid point.

UTE, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in this area. But you are correct, neither of us are "evolutionary biologists".

But think about that very term. Come on, what do you expect a evolutionary biologist to believe??

This is the problem. People are only given one point of view. They are not exposed to other theories. They do not see evidence that might support other theories.

It is only natural that these people would believe as they are taught. It is perfectly natural for people to respect higher education. Many people blindly accept what they are taught and do not question it.

But REAL science questions everything. I have no problem with evolution being taught as long as other valid theories like Creationism and ID are presented as well.

You cannot just dismiss Creationism and ID. Many well respected and qualified scientists have made serious scientific investigations and feel they have compelling evidence for these theories.

But going back, you finally admit that you have no real idea if the evidence presented by evolutionists is really true, because you are not qualified in these areas (and neither am I). But then you go and say that you can tell when Creationists and IDs are lying.

No you can't. You are not qualified any better than me.

And an "evolutionary biologist" has only one point of view. They have already accepted evolution as fact. Their viewpoint is skewed toward evolution.

This is another area where evolution is unscientific. They only accept evidence from people who already believe and accept evolution. If a scientist in mathematical probabilites shows that the macro-evolution of a cell is absolutely impossible, you dismiss it. You say this person is not qualified. But mathematical probability does apply to evolution. Evolution demands "chance".

Who would better understand chance than someone in the field of mathematical probability??

And those in this field are strongly against evolution.

And you know it.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I had a look at some whale anatomy material. What UTEOTW calls pelvic bones in whales aren't too impressive. It takes quite a bit of imagination to say that they are the same as the pelvic bones of a land creature. I am not impressed."

Not so much imagination as one might think. Here is a drawing of such a pelvis and associate leg bones from a whale dissection in the 19th century.

Your examples don't look like the pelvic bones of a land creature to me.

A.F.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Your examples don't look like the pelvic bones of a land creature to me."

Take a look back at the image in the post and the accompanying text from the dissection..

You will notice that while it does not maintain all the features of a pelvis still used for walking around, it still hass a rather complex shape, complete with the curvature of other pelvises. It also still has the cavity where the femur inserts into the hip bone and even the cup of cartilege into which it fits. The head of the femur is also present as well as some of the ligaments and muscles which support the structure. The same things can be said of the knee joint.

The overal anatomy of the section shown is very much like one would expect from a degenerate pelvis.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by JWI:
Here is the very interesting story of a man who absolutely believed in evolution. His major in college was biology. He never questioned evolution at all and completely believed real scientific evidence supported it.

Shortly thereafter he came to Christ and was saved. At this point he became a Theological Evolutionist. He was still completely convinced that evolution was true.

But somewhere along the line he was confronted by the contradictions between science and the Bible. He made an in-depth study of the subject.

He became convinced through research that not only was evolution false and non-scientific, but that the six 24 hour day creation account in Genesis is completely true.

Enough of an intro. I would hope you TEs would at least take a look at this book.

http://www.present-truth.org/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2000.htm

If we are doing anecdotes...

Here's a deal for you. I'll read some of yours if you'll read my short anecdote and the entire 29 evidences for macroevolution page. Mine's short. Here is an excerpt.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

 

[JWI]

UTE

Nice article. And it is fair to present two different views. That is the whole point of this thread. Why should ID be taught? Because students should be exposed to any good theory that has scientific evidence.

I noticed a few things this writer said though.

"This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow. for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see

One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was "

I deleted the photo links.

Comments- This person in my opinion makes erroneous assumptions. He claims that thick sediments take long periods of time.

This is not only false, it has been observed. Floods produce significant sediment in very short periods of time. Entire forests were buried by landslides and floods when Mt. St. Helens exploded.

And Mt. St. Helens is a very minor event compared to the worldwide flood described in the Bible. The Bible says that the tops of all mountains were covered. Mt. Ararat, where Noah's ark came to rest is over 13,000 ft in elevation. This means the entire Earth would have been covered to at least a depth of nearly 3 miles.

There are records of eyewitness accounts of the ark. Many were made by credible witnesses such as military pilots.

Here is an interesting page on that.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html

There is even a 1949 Air Force photo showing a large object on Ararat at over 12,500 elevation.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

So, a flood of this magnitude is almost unimaginable. It could easily account for the sediments this writer witnessed.

You say Creationists misrepresent facts. Creationists make the same claim about Evolutionists.

http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/acall.html

So you see, your evidence is not one bit different from mine. Both ID, Creationism, and Evolution are theories. They are equal in every way, and should be presented to students on the study of origins.

Evolutionists in Georgia went crazy because a single sticker that said nothing more than "Evolution is a Theory" was placed on textbooks.

This shows how afraid of the truth evolutionists are. If they had good science on their side, they would not be afraid of competition.

But they are.

 

[ronthedisciple]

It seems the discussion has evolved into something other than what was originally established.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

ID is not science folks on the level with other scientific theories. The reason is it simply does not really have any theory that explains anything! It says life was designed intelligently because . . . .
because . . .
well, its complex, isn't it?

Folks thats all there is to ID! That isn't enough to be science!