Evolution on trial again in Kansas

[Stratos]

Originally posted by John D Harris: That maybe, I'm not familar with many other creation storys, but how many of them, talk about there being darkness first, then light coming afterwards? Remember Genisis was writen 3,500 years ago.

Probably alot of them; it really isn't such a revolutionary idea.

[ 05-16-2005, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Oh yes, there's also the 'visible universe' or something which is the only bit we can ever observe. It's a nice sphere around the Earth of approx 14bn light years radius - we can never see further than that distance because we would 'see' the beginning of the universe before being able to 'see' outside of our sphere.

It seems there is a whole school of thought about this. IIRC the thought/theroy is that no matter where, which direction you look into the sky, if your telescope is strong enough you would see back to the begining and see the big bang. That's really neat, it all started at one minscule point(presumably in the center of the universe, since everything is expanding out fron that point.) but no matter where you look, even 180 degrees away from the direction the milkyway came from you can see the begining, where it came from.

Sham, I don't know I kinda like "Who order that?" I can just see a bunch of people who have been working their rear ends off trying to make some kind of sense of what they got in the way of pieces parts, and then somebody throws in another piece into the mix. You just gota love people that can take a new factor thrown into the equation, with that kind of sense of humor.

[ 05-17-2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: A mildly amusing philosophical thought-experiment 'proving' an infinite universe can be done by imagining standing on the edge of the universe and throwing a spear off. Two things are possible: Either (i) it bounces back, in which case there is something to bounce back off or (ii) it carries on going, in which case there must be some medium to travel through. In both cases, there can be no edge to the universe and therefore its infinite [img]smile.gif[/img]

Only to the extent that the spear is ahead of the rest of the matter in the universe traveling through the 3 diminsions.

Here's another thought-experiment: From the examples I've seem about folding of time/space(the example of a piece of paper with two points on it folded over so the point are now closer) are flawed because a piece of paper with two points drawn on the top is only two diminsions. In a three diminsional universe there will be many pieces of paper above and below the the piece we are folding(each piece of paper representing only one slice/plane in the third diminsion). What happens to the other pieces of paper? Do they somehow move out of the way for our folding paper? Or does our folding paper somehow move through the other pieces paper? What happens to the points drawn on the other pieces of paper that have to be there for there to exsist a 3rd diminsion, as our folding piece of paper passes through them/move them out of the way?

I believe there will come a time we will find our theories on time/space are all wet.

I think we'll find there is no speed limit, just an technological limit to the speed based on the amount of energy we can produce at any given point in time.

[ 05-17-2005, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Timber Loftis]

If you can fold two dimensions, you can fold 3 -- or 23. You just can't perceive this, so in your mind it's impossible. Mathematically it isn't impossible at all.

Beings are only capable of perceiving their dimension and the one below it. As a 3D being, you can see the 2nd and 3rd dimensions, but no others.

[Azred]

We are really four-dimensional beings, but yes we normally perceive only the 2nd and 3rd dimensions.

M-theory has shown that there are other universes which existed before the point in time which could be called the "big bang". Apparently these dimensional collisions occur infrequently but we cannot perceive such collisions. Gravity appears to be the "spill-over" of a force which primarily exists in a dimension we cannot perceive.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If you can fold two dimensions, you can fold 3 -- or 23. You just can't perceive this, so in your mind it's impossible. Mathematically it isn't impossible at all. Beings are only capable of perceiving their dimension and the one below it. As a 3D being, you can see the 2nd and 3rd dimensions, but no others.

I didn't write it was impossible, I asked what happens to the other Planes as the 2 diminsional plane is folded.(Basic Geometry:2 points to have a 1 diminsional line,3 points to have 2 diminsional plane, 4 points to have 3 diminsions.)The 3 diminsions is a series of 2 diminsional planes stacked on top of each other NO matter which direction you stack the 2 diminsional planes. As you fold a 2 diminsional plane(piece of paper)the points that make up the plane, move and are therefore in a new plane, or at least travel through exsisting 2 diminsional planes, in the 3 diminsional universe.

EDIT: size of 3 diminsional box can be defined with only 4 points, I was thunking it takes 8 points to define the corners, 6 to define the sides.

[ 05-18-2005, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Lucern: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATIO...hearings.reut/ quote: Evolution hearings open in Kansas Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 2005 GMT (0405 HKT) TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) -- A six-day courtroom-style debate opened Thursday in Kansas over what children should be taught in schools about the origin of life -- was it natural evolution or did God create the world? The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses, were arranged amid efforts by some Christian groups in Kansas and nationally to reverse the domination of evolutionary theory in the nation's schools. William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life's beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum. School science classes are teaching children that life evolved naturally and randomly, Harris said, arguing that this was in conflict with Biblical teachings that God created life. "They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." Conservative groups are trying to convince state education officials to change guidelines for how evolution theory is taught in science classes at a time when Kansas education authorities are producing new science teaching guidelines. The hearings -- organized by a committee of the Kansas Board of Education -- were taking place 80 years after the so-called "Monkey Trial" of John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher who was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution. There is renewed debate over evolution in more than a dozen states and a resurgence across the nation in the influence of religious conservatives, who played an important part in the reelection of Republican President Bush last year. Teachers and preachers The Kansas hearing drew a large crowd that included students, teachers and preachers. National and local scientific leaders for the most part boycotted the event. Pedro Irigonegaray, a lawyer defending evolution in the debate, said he planned to call no witnesses, though he did cross-examine witnesses, sometimes combatively. Harris acknowledged under questioning that there were many people who saw no incompatibility between religious beliefs that God created life and evolutionary teachings about how life evolved through natural processes. Outside the hearing room, outraged scientists challenged the validity of the hearings. "This is a showcase trial," said Jack Krebs, vice president for Kansas Citizens for Science. "They have hijacked science and education." Ken Schmitz, a University of Missouri/Kansas City chemistry professor attending the hearing said he worried that the attack on evolution could confuse students and endanger their ability to excel in science. "They are not going to understand this," said Schmitz. Changes to the curriculum proposed by the conservatives would not require inclusion of Biblical beliefs in science classes, also called "creationism" -- the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution. But they would involve questioning the principles of evolution as explanations for the origins of life, the universe and the genetic code. As well, teachers would be encouraged to discuss with students "alternative explanations." Kansas has been struggling with the issue for years, capturing worldwide attention in 1999 when the state school board voted to downplay Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in science classes. Subsequent elections altered the membership of the board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now producing new science teaching guidelines.

[/QUOTE]Going back to the original article, here are a few questions that spring to my mind.

1. One of the core arguments for the validity of science over religion is that science and scientists are willing to question their theories and religion is not. Scientists (and those that support a scientific POV) loudly and proudly proclaim their open-mindedness to questions EVERY theory, hypothesis or conjecture presented and that ALL scientific discoveries should be exhaustively tested. So WHY are scientists so upset - to the point that "National and local scientific leaders for the most part boycotted the event" - about the manner in which Evolution is taught is being questioned?

2. ToE supporters claim they are NOT trying to explain the origin of life with ToE, they are just presenting apparantly indisputable facts that evolution has occurred. Fair enough. But if ToE isn't designed to explain the origin of life (by implication at least), then again, WHY do scientists so strenuously object to alternative "theories" or conjectures regarding the origin of life being presented? If ToE isn't meant or designed to explain the origin of life, then why object to a view that does attempt to explain the origin of life?

3. The argument is presented that teaching Creationism will only "confuse" students and "endanger their ability to excel in science". If the core of scientific investigation is to examine and question everything, then how will "questioning" the Theory of Evolution "endanger" the ability of students to excel at science? Is that really the concern, or are the ToE supporters insisting that ToE be "accepted as the right answer" by students?

Although John D. already pointed this out, I think it is ironically humorous that the scientists are engaging in the exact same behavior they so strongly criticize in Creationists. They have publicly boycotted the trial instead of participating to present their side of the issue. They criticize Creationism for claiming it is "right" and that other views are "wrong", yet they turn out in force to object the validity of ToE being questioned. They claim ToE is not designed to explain the origin of life, but they strenuously object to an alternative explanation being offered.

I'm not stating which side is right and which side is wrong. My beliefs on the origin of life should be well-known by most members by now. I do not deny that evolution exists and has occurred in most species - including humans - over the last several thousand years (or longer). I simply do not believe Evolution can validly explain the origin of life, particularly in regards to humans.

[Azred]

The origins of life remains a widely-researched field in that gray area in between chemistry and biology. Although scientists have been able to take strictly inorganic materials and produce amino acids (the building blocks of life-generating proteins), no one has adequately explained how the proteins managed to get built into the first proto-organisms which would have been close to viruses. Also, no one has, to my knowledge, explained how the jump from viruses (which don't have any real biological processes) into bacteria (which do).

Am I off-topic, or what? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Stratos]

Cerek,

This is my POV on your questions.

1. What do you mean by "the manner in which Evolution is taught is being questioned?" I wasn't aware of any differrent ways to teach it. As for why the scientist' boycot, I don't really know their motives, but I assume they think going there is like beating a dead horse.

Here's the crux of the matter: Creationism and ID rest entirely on the existence of God; a God that is unpercievable by our senses, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable and untestable. If God doesn't exist, which science can't know anything about (se above), then Creationism and ID wont work while ToE is neutral to the existence or non-existance of God. By extension, Creationism and ID isn't testable, and it doesn't provide a scientist with any new information or answer any questions in a scientific manner. Science has no real use of such a concept of God. On the contrary; adding such a God into a scientific theory or model raises more questions than it answers. This is why God is left out of theories and models, even by theistic scientists.

2. I, and many other, thinks Creationism and ID is more about politics and religion than science. The reason scientist objects to C/ID is that they're not really scientific theories, they're more like theology disguised as science. Scientist wants more than that to accept them as scientific theories. This is also the reason they oppose the teaching of C/ID in science classes.

3. Yes, it was quite a strong statement, but I guess Schmitz questioned the reasons ToE is questioned. Very little sound scientific arguments, let alone empirical data, have been presented to refute ToE. As I see it, ToE is criticized because it opposes peoples religious views, and not on scientic grounds. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-19-2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[John D Harris]

Stratos you are correct that it(ID)is in the political/religious arena. That is were the problem lies, as an example look at this thread who has asked questions and who has issued statements? I'll give you a hint the question asker is a "so called" religious closed minded one. Now since the ID can't be proven or disproven by science, since science does not and is not set up to ask the questions that ID asks/answers science should say we don't know and don't care we are not trying to answer those questions and don't care if they are asked or answered, it's not our job to ask or seek the answers to those questions. But is that what they are doing?