Below originally written yesterday before the thread. I'm progressively
reading the entries.
On Jed's topic, yes, life would have to have started somewhere but it
doesn't mean that every bit of life had to start ab-initio. Where's the
logic in that?!
What I'm trying to say (below) is that Darwinism says that the ENVIRONMENT
SOLEY determines the fitness of organisms. What if an organism's fitness is
determined by another organism or MODIFIED DIRECTLY BY IT. Did Darwin
encompass such an idea. Evolution needs to be modified for this scenario.
The BIG IRONY is that Darwinism is being taught like a religion.
... written yesterday offline ....
V,
In fact it doesn't even need ET intervention (Intelligent Intervention II?),
take any species leaving symbiotically and with the ability to modify
another organism or make choices for it (rather than the environment picking
the fittest which is the Darwinist's mantra).
Thus animal and plant breeding
Take great apes, some have the ability to make tools, bedding, etc.
And I'm sure there are other examples with lower organisms where one
organism NOT THE ENVIRONMENT is picking what is fit.
Besides there are mysteries in genomes on this planet, junk DNA, the
Cambrian explosion, Eukaryotic cells, Microchondrial DNA...
An open minded biologist/biochemist perhaps could help in something I only
take a passing interest in (biology a fascinating science, chemistry too,
not some mere derivative of mathematical physics as the 'Gods' would have us
believe). Surely though the old model (Darwinism) must be up for
questioning?
I say if you are going to teach anything as ('scuse the pun) 'gospel' that
you explain the LIMITS to the theory and what it would take for it to fail.
I give an example of an honest teacher, not jaded or idea-less (remember the
old George Bernard Shaw maxim, those who can..., maybe we should add 'and
those who can't get cushy jobs in big institutions doing pointless
research') should say to his class I am going to teach you 1st Law, 2nd Law,
Relativity, Darwinism such and such... Now I've never seen an exception to
such and such a law and no-one has BUT if there was this is the necessary
condition and no giggling, eyes rolling or other suggestions of madness to
even contemplate such.
So the teacher rather than jading that boundless potential which is the
young, teaches them to think and how to construct arguments for the most
contentious of issues should it ever arise.
(I've rarely come across a teacher who likes teaching or even likes the
young but that could be a Brit thing.)
No I don't agree with Intelligent Design with divine intervention - it is a
cop out on thought. Possibly, giving it the slightest credit, design an
experiment or fact gathering process to show how it could be so and don't
mention the bible or damnation for even asking.
I think that too much science is being taught like religion and the
discoverers as prophets or gods. They are just people with bank balances,
relationship problems, quirks, bigotries, highs and lows and they go to the
toilet just like everybody else does.
R.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 August 2005 10:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: Intelligent design, RE: [ BOB PARKS-WHATSNEW]
Vorts,
Sorry if I don't fully participate for long. There are so many messages on
Vortex.
What the slurrers against ID fail to admit is the possibility of
extra-terrestrial intervention just like a civilisation leaves industrial
waste. To rule it out would be unscientific.
In fact we're doing it right now as we take our first steps into GM.
People don't seem to realise you have to have imagination to do science and
maths, all the logic and erudition, number crunching is par for the course
and any journeyman (or woman) can do that.
Remi.
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RC Macaulay
Sent: 07 August 2005 04:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ BOB PARKS-WHATSNEW]
John Coviello wrote..
>This week's column could have been called What's Not New. Government and
politics mixing in America, what's new about that? Unfortunately, our
current crop of politicians really seems to be using religion for political
advantage in a cynical way to win votes. Are people tired of this already?
Time we sent the religious righters back to wherever they came from and
start running our government to benefit all for a change?
I read the whats new article by Bob Parks with interest ,in particular
regarding the comments about " intelligent design". The idea of intelligent
design comes from university campus student science groups. The ideas
represent the students challenge to the university to peer review the Darwin
junk science theory or discard it. Ever look at Parks picture posted at U of
M ???. Notice the set of his jaw ? Me thinks he protestest too much.
Richard
