 |
 |
Hi Paula I'm not certain how this is relevant to Parkinson's, but much of the evidence for "intelligent design" is very weak. Most of the things you mention here are criticisms of evolution rather than talking points for ID. My spin on a tiny bit of it Complexity does not imply a master creator. Take the complexity of our society for example. There's no way any of us could understand more than an infinitesimal portion of it; many of us can't even handle the complexities of running even our own lives! Yet 6 billion people interact every day and keep the world fed, clothed, housed, and emailing -- not through one pre-ordained plan, but through the independent actions of each of us. The micro-evolution/macro-evolution distinction is a bit of a red herring. To take a silly philosophical exercise: when does a bald man become bald? Each additional hair that falls out does not make much difference...but summed together over years they do. It's the same with micro and macro evolution. Growing something so distinct that you'd call it macro evolution -- like the trunk of an elephant -- could take thousands of generations, but at each generation you'd only see a slight "micro" change -- in the elephant's trunk case, a slightly longer nose. In other cases we have seen evolutionary jumps toward macro evolution, but these giant leaps usually fail miserably. Two-headed snakes appear in nature occassionally. In some case having an extra head might be an advantage (say, if an eagle bit one of your heads off) but for the most part two-headed snakes are at a big disadvantage relative to single headed snakes. They can't ever decide which way to go, can't fit through thin openings, and constantly fight over food. They don't often lead long, healthy lives. For a human example: I have a friend who was born with six fingers. You could call it "macro" evolution but he really didn't have much need for the sixth finger, so he had it chopped off. As far as ID researchers being censored by their peers, science, like any social organization, can be very cliquish and set in its ways, but one thing to remember is that there is an army of graduate students and professors out there trying to make their mark on the world by discovering something new. If some indisputable evidence of ID shows up, the person who tapes his name to it will be famous. Lastly, you are correct that carbon-14 dating is affected by changes in the environment, but scientists have built calibration models to account for this. In any case, carbon-14 is not usually used to date fossils, as they are much older than 60,000 years -- the limit of carbon-14 dating. From the wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) The raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the assumption that the level of 14C absorption remains constant does not hold true in practice. The level is maintained by high energy particles interacting with the earth's upper atmosphere, which may be affected by changes in the earth's magnetic field<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field>or in the cosmic ray background, e.g. variations caused by solar storms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare>. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean>, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate>), and sedimentary rocks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock>; and changing climate<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate>can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities -- it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb>tests in the 1950s <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s> and 1960s<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s>and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO 2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present -- the fossil fuels<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel> used in industry and transportation. The BP dates are therefore calibrated <http://www.calpal-online.de/> to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves<http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/calibration_curves.htm>are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates with other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology>), ice cores <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core>, deep ocean sediment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sediment>cores, lake sediment varves <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve>, coral<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral>samples, and speleothems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speleothem> (cave deposits). Hope this helps. Archie On 10/10/05, Paula Nixon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Intelligent design scientists use the scientific methods. They went to the > big important universities. But the evolutionists don't let the intelligent > design papers be printed in their journals, and encourage the public to > believe that they just follow myths. > > "Facts" have been known to change as more information is learned. The > earth is not flat, etc. Facts are seen and interpreted by the philosophy's > of the beholder. Neither intelligent design nor evolution can be tested by > scientific method. No one has been able to see macro-evolution at work, or > reproduce it in the laboratories. The missing links are still missing. Lots > of micro-evolution is seen, like all the varieties of dogs, but they are > still dogs. The peppered moth is still a moth. Not any slight change to be > something else. Both evolution and intelligent design see the results of > what has happened on the earth and we put those results into our theories, > keeping what fits and trying to figure out what doesn't. Steven Jay Gould, > one of Harvard's eminent scientists had suggested that evolutionist not > debate intelligent design scientists because they usually lose. > > Intelligent design does use scientific methods. They can't assume anything > or the label that they believe fables might be true. On the other hand, when > you read the textbooks, they are peppered with "probably", "could be", > "might have" when they are talking about evolution. All the dating methods > start with the assumption that everything has continued on as it was in the > beginning, however there are signs of too much oxygen, etc. in the past, > hence the 3 ft. dragonflies, and other huge plants and animals found in the > fossil beds. Obviously the environment has changed. > > The geologic column isn't found anywhere on earth except in the textbooks. > It was thought up with evolution in mind. The fossils are dated by the rocks > they are found in, and the rocks are dated by which fossils are in them, > circular reasoning. (Some of those "fossils" have been found alive today > like the coelacanth fish, somewhat ruining the idea that the rocks they are > found in may not be that old.) Carbon 14 has dated living mollusks as being > dead for 2300 years. Fresh seal skins dated at 1,300. And even in the > textbooks, the geologic column has very little life in the Precambrian > level, and suddenly there are all sorts of complex creatures in the Cambrian > level. Where did they come from? > > The evolutionists aren't that magnanimous a bunch. They have their ideas > and they are sticking to them. There are some good evolutionary scientists, > that see logical problems with the Big Bang. They aren't working on the > right track so they get very little press from the big boys". > > What has this to do with PD? Just you have to think for yourself. Science > is very political. > > While we are at trying to find money for PD research, why don't we get > some of the AIDS money? I guess it's to political. > > Paula > > rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > KF has taken the time and trouble to explain the scientific method and how > science works. It would be so helpful if others took the time and trouble > to READ what he has said. > > It seems to me science is the "business" of obtaining better and better > understanding of what is I get that it explains how things work, is > descriptive, predictive and self-correcting. Religion and faith are > limiting and dogmatic - you have to believe a certain way and go through > amazing mental gymnastics to make the facts fit what you already believe > is > true..Science could cause you to change your mind, but not religion. The > existence or non-existence of God is not a question for science, but for a > comparative religion or philosophy class like Metaphysics where I wrote a > paper on Kant's arguments for the existence of God. However, even in > Metaphysics you ended up with math....ideas had letters like a, b, c, and > you had formulas because the ideas were complicated.. > > When I taught Advanced Placement History I peppered my very smart students > with questions about the 'why' of science and math because my science > background was so skimpy. They always said, "It just is, Miss Brown." > > We will never be able to discuss or debate these issues unless you > understand the kind of truth science deals with. > Ray > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. F. Etzold" > To: > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 9:29 PM > Subject: Re: The Scientific Method and intelligent design > > > > Paula Nixon wrote: > > > >>Dear Ray > >>When Darwin first started talking about Evolution, it sounded very > >>rational that life evolved from the simple cell which was thought to be > a > >>jelly like mass of protoplasm with a nucleus. I remember drawing those > in > >>school. Now we know there is no such thing as a simple cell, it is a > >>single cell. In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the Rockerfeller Institute in > >>NY, discovered it was an amazingly intricate system of incredibly fine > >>tubes and chain of minute bags that totally permeate the entire cell. To > >>summary your 10 pages of the "simple cell" It has structural design, > >>energy generators, invasion guards , transport systems, food factories, > >>waste disposal systems, protective barriers, communication links within > >>and without the cell city that it is. Just the "skin" of the cell is > >>amazing. It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell, > >>almost as if it had a chemical sense of taste as it grabs or rejects the > >>needed nutrients into the cell by forming a little "finger"! > > ! > >> that > >> reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Then there is the DNA > >> and RNA! Science hasn't a clue how this could have just happened, but > >> they don't say that in the schools or in science books, or if they do > it > >> is very low keyed. It couldn't have just happened. > >> > >>There was a quote I read once, that I can't find when I need it, that > >>said, "Evolution expects us to believe the unbelievable, but to do > >>otherwise is to believe in a Creator and that is unacceptable." > >>Paula > >> > > Paula: > > > > Just because the scientific community does not know everything does not > > imply or force us to speculate on intelligent design. Any scientist > > worth his salt will readily "admit" that his/her knowledge is limited. > > The leap from this is unjustified and illogic. Had scientists made that > > leap all scientific progress would have stopped, because there is no > > more knowledge to obtain. > > A basic tenet is that our understanding of nature is always incomplete > > and that we must strive for further knowledge. If we had accepted the > > scientific knowledge of say 200 years ago > > there would be a faith based understanding of, for instance, the cell > > but no modern medicine no modern biology. Indeed our present society is > > inconceivable had we accepted the '"final" knowledge of 200 years ago. > > > > The details of the construction of the cell is just what I described in > > my article on science: The knowledge was refined but that does not > > change our basic understanding. Just because something is complicated > > does not imply intelligent design. The little finger you describe has > > some man made analogs. Chemistry can now construct molecules at will > > with specific properties (such as a little finger). But I would argue > > that these molecules were not created by God. Most pharmacological > > products were designed that way and in fact the latest Nobel prize nin > > Chemistry rewards such a new process. If one did not know how this was > > arrived at one could readily argue it was intelligent design. > > > > K. F. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > > mailto:[log in to unmask] > > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto: > [log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto: > [log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn