Intelligen Design vs Evolution

[Martin]

Here's is the latest..

 

Professor Slams Intelligent Design

 

from Reuters News

 

HARRISBURG' date=' Pennsylvania (Oct. 12) - A professor on Wednesday slammed the teaching of intelligent design as a blow to science education as he testified in a lawsuit over whether the theory should be introduced in schools as an alternative to evolution.

 

Teaching intelligent design is "probably the worst thing I have ever heard of in science education," said Brian Alters, who teaches science education at Harvard University and McGill University in Montreal...[/quote']

 

I appreciate your keeping us informed about the latest, Max. For historical perspective here is a link about an encounter between Pope Pius XII and one of the discoverers of big bang cosmology, Father Georges Lemaître, that took place around 1951. Both come out looking honorable, in my estimation.

 

http://www.obspm.fr/savoirs/contrib/debat.fr.shtml

 

Jean-Pierre Luminet is an astrophysicist at the Observatory of Paris

http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luminet/eluminet.html

 

---exerpt from the Paris Observatory website---

[TRANSLATION]

...False indictments (as well as these just criticisms) have been brought against cosmology. One of these unfairly damaged the scientific reputation of the greatest cosmologist of the century: Georges Lemaître, inventor of the concept of the big bang, with the russian Alexander Friedmann.

 

…He was accused of wanting to confirm the story in Genesis by science. There was nothing in that: although certainly a priest, Lemaître was a brilliant scientist and held to a radical distinction between science and religion, believing that one could never reduce the supreme Being to the level of a scientific hypothesis—as the French mathematician Laplace put it to Napoleon.

 

Meanwhile Lemaître had some bad luck: on 22 November 1951, Pope Pius XII declared in front of the Pontifical Academy “It seems true that today’s science, going back over a tract of millions of centuries, has succeeded in witnessing the initial Fiat Lux. Around that epoque the cosmos emerged from the hand of the Creator.”

 

Lemaître, who was a fierce enemy of this kind of “concordism”, requested a papal audience and respectfully set things right. On 7 September 1953, before the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union, Pius XII took the radically opposite line: scientific cosmology refers neither to Fiat Lux nor to creation.

 

[ORIGINAL TEXT IN FRENCH]

“…A côté de ces justes critiques, de faux procès sont intentés à la cosmologie. L’un d’entre eux a injustement gâché la renommée scientifique du plus grand cosmologiste de ce siècle: Georges Lemaître, inventeur du concept de big bang avec le russe Alexandre Friedmann. On lui a reproché de vouloir confirmer par la science le récit de la Genèse. Il n’en était rien: abbé, certes, mais brillant scientifique, Lemaître tenait à une distinction radicale entre science et religion, pensant que l’on ne pourra jamais réduire l’Être suprême au rang d’une hypothèse scientifique - comme le disait à Napoléon le mathématicien français Pierre Simon de Laplace. Cependant Lemaître joua de malchance : le 22 novembre 1951, le pape Pie XII déclarait devant l’Académie Pontificale : “Il semble en vérité que la science d’aujourd’hui, remontant d’un trait des millions de siècles, ait réussi à se faire le témoin de ce Fiat Lux initial. Vers cette époque, le cosmos est sorti de la main du Créateur”.

 

Farouche adversaire d’un tel “concordisme”, Lemaître demanda audience au pape et remit respectueusement les choses en place. Le 7 septembre 1953, devant l’assemblée générale de l’Union Astronomique Internationale, Pie XII tint effectivement un discours radicalement opposé : la cosmologie scientifique ne parlait ni de Fiat lux , ni de création.”...

---endquote---

 

There is more about this in an illustrated wide-audience science magazine article by Luminet----December 1997 issue of "Sciences et Vie"

http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luminet/scvieFL.html

[yialanliu]

[ORIGINAL TEXT IN FRENCH]

“…A côté de ces justes critiques, de faux procès sont intentés à la cosmologie. L’un d’entre eux a injustement gâché la renommée scientifique du plus grand cosmologiste de ce siècle: Georges Lemaître, inventeur du concept de big bang avec le russe Alexandre Friedmann. On lui a reproché de vouloir confirmer par la science le récit de la Genèse. Il n’en était rien: abbé, certes, mais brillant scientifique, Lemaître tenait à une distinction radicale entre science et religion, pensant que l’on ne pourra jamais réduire l’Être suprême au rang d’une hypothèse scientifique - comme le disait à Napoléon le mathématicien français Pierre Simon de Laplace. Cependant Lemaître joua de malchance : le 22 novembre 1951, le pape Pie XII déclarait devant l’Académie Pontificale : “Il semble en vérité que la science d’aujourd’hui, remontant d’un trait des millions de siècles, ait réussi à se faire le témoin de ce Fiat Lux initial. Vers cette époque, le cosmos est sorti de la main du Créateur”.

 

Farouche adversaire d’un tel “concordisme”, Lemaître demanda audience au pape et remit respectueusement les choses en place. Le 7 septembre 1953, devant l’assemblée générale de l’Union Astronomique Internationale, Pie XII tint effectivement un discours radicalement opposé : la cosmologie scientifique ne parlait ni de Fiat lux , ni de création.”...

---endquote---

I think this is wut it meant a mistranslation?

... concurrently to these right criticisms, of false lawsuit are brought with cosmology. One of them wrongfully wasted the scientific fame of the largest cosmologist of this century: George Lemaître, inventor of the concept of big-bang with Russian Alexandre Friedmann. One reproached him for wanting to confirm by science the account of the Genesis. It of it was nothing: abbot, certainly, but shining scientific, Lemaître held with a radical distinction between science and religion, thinking that one will be able to never reduce To be supreme for it with the row of a scientific assumption - as said it to Napoleon the French mathematician Pierre Simon of Laplace. However Lemaître played of bad luck: November 22, 1951, the pope Pie XII declared in front of the Pontifical Academy: "It seems in truth that the science of today, tonic of a feature of the million centuries, succeeded in being made the witness of this FIAT initial Lux. About this time, cosmos left the hand of Créateur".Farouche adversary of such" a concordism ", Lemaître required audience of the pope and respectfully positioned back the things. September 7, 1953, before the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union, Pie XII held indeed a radically opposite speech: scientific cosmology spoke neither about FIAT lux, nor of création."

[Inquisitive7]

DAMN!! I thought Pennock was going to be smarter than this. First' date=' he knows bloody well that IDers do offer evidence in support of their idea. What does he think [i']Darwin's Black Box [/i] is? Second, he should know from Popper that any theory can have evidence supporting it. That isn't what counts. What counts is the evidence against a theory.

 

I hoped they were going to take Quinn's approach. Instead of futzing around with whether ID is science or not, simply meet it head on: Call ID a scientific theory and then say it has been falsified. The evidence shows that natural selection can indeed explain the emergenc of complexity and that the origin of life is chemistry, not natural selection. Since ID is a falsified theory, the only reason for wanting to teach it as a valid theory is to promote a religious idea.

 

Yes, Chemistry is the basis of life. Did you know that Chemical evolution is impossible? For life to begin, a preformed functioning cell is necessary. This cell is made up of complex carbohydrates, proteins, fats and nucleic acids. They must be preorganized in a specific way.

 

Amino acids are basic building blocks for proteins. All enzymes are proteins. For a cell to form protein through Evolution( naturalism) the chance is 1 in 10 raised to the power of 42. This is a statistical impossibility. So to assume that life evolved through chemicals is a fairy tale and not science.

[swansont]

Yes' date=' Chemistry is the basis of life. Did you know that Chemical evolution is impossible? For life to begin, a preformed functioning cell is necessary. This cell is made up of complex carbohydrates, proteins, fats and nucleic acids. They must be preorganized in a specific way.

 

Amino acids are basic building blocks for proteins. All enzymes are proteins. For a cell to form protein through Evolution( naturalism) the chance is 1 in 10 raised to the power of 42. This is a statistical impossibility. So to assume that life evolved through chemicals is a fairy tale and not science.[/quote']

 

You'll pardon me if I don't just take your word for it.

 

Can you demonstrate any of this — have you attempted all possible combinations of atoms and molecules, under all conditions, to show that life can't arise? Can you provide a valid calculation for your probability? (The Miller-Urey experiment shows that these type of calculations to be flawed)