PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design on Trial (Nova - PBS)



S0Noma
11-16-2007, 11:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Original PBS Broadcast Date: November 13, 2007

In this program, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen's Vulcan Productions, Inc.

In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design—the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply. (For more on this, see Board vs. Teachers.) Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

"There was a blow-up like you couldn't believe," Bill Buckingham, head of the school board's curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, "laced with Darwinism."

NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?" Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature. (See Defining Science and arguments for and against evolution.)

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems—the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million. (Hear Judge Jones read excerpts from his historic decision.)

"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive Producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools." (Hear more from Paula Apsell on why NOVA took on this controversial subject.)

For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom. <hr /></blockquote>

"Watch the Program - This two-hour program is divided into 12 chapters. Choose any chapter below and select QuickTime to begin viewing the video. If you experience difficulty viewing, it may be due to high demand. We regret this and suggest you try back at another time." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html)

Program Transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html)

Chopstick
11-16-2007, 12:53 PM
PBS has also been playing it the last few nights. I haven't seen it all but I did listen to a few of the audio clips by the judge. Interesting.

wolfdancer
11-16-2007, 01:24 PM
I never bought into intelligent design....preferring this instead:
"Nvwa is the ancestor of mankind in the mythology of ancient China. As legend goes, she smelted the five-colored stones to mend the firmament (sky), cut off the feet of the great turtle to support the four pillars of the universe, controlled the flood, and drove away fierce beasts so as to let the people live in peace. Another legend says, she made persons with yellow clay, and married her brother, Emperor Fuxi, turning a relationship of brother and sister into a marriage, and multiplying mankind. Thus, later generations adored her as a goddess of marriage and reproduction, especially in charge of matters of copulation between men and women. Learners of cultural history regard her as a goddess that came into being in the era of worship of the female genital organ.

The popular story of "Nvwa Mended the Sky" was noted in "Huainanzi," written in Western Han (206 B.C. - 24). It says, "In remote antiquity, the four poles of the universe collapsed, the sky cracked open, the earth was no longer able to support everything, fire ran wild everywhere without ceasing, and flood overflowed out of control. Fierce beasts ate common people, and ferocious birds attacked the old and the weak. Hence, Nvwa smelted the five-colored stones to mend the sky, cut off the feet of the great turtle to support the four poles, killed the black dragon to help the earth, and gathered the ash of reed to stop the flood."

According to "Taiping Yulan," a set of encyclopedias compiled in the Song Dynasty (960-1279), at the beginning of the universe, there were no human beings. Nvwa molded figures from yellow clay to create people. As the clay was not strong enough, she put ropes into the clay to make the bodies erect. There was also such a saying, "Nvwa prayed to gods to let her be the goddess to take charge of marital affairs. As a result of her going-between, men and women lived in harmony, and she was worshiped as the goddess of marriage." According to "Duyi Zhi" by Li Rong of the Tang Dynasty (618-907), at the opening of the universe, there were a brother and a sister called Nvwa, living in Kunlun Mountain, and there were no ordinary people at that time. They wished to become husband and wife, yet, felt shy about it. Thus, the brother took his younger sister to the top of the mountain and swore: "If Heaven allows us to be husband and wife, please let the clouds gather; if not, please let the clouds scatter." Then, the clouds gathered together. The younger sister came to live with her brother. She made a fan with grass to hide her face. The present custom of women taking a fan in their hands originated from that story.

Written by Liu Guangdi and Jun Shan.
Chinese legend says Pan Gu created the world by separating the heaven and the earth from chaos. In the beginning, the universe was like an egg and there was only chaos in the egg. Pan Gu had slept in the egg for over 18,000 years. Then one day, he woke up and cracked the egg into pieces. By separating the heavy and light parts of the egg, he created the heaven and the earth. Pan Gu stood on the earth and held up the heaven using his hands, and then he had grown with the heaven until the form of the world for another 18,000 years.
Written by Liu Guangdi and Jun Shan.



web page (http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa_nuwa02a.htm)

http://z.about.com/d/chineseculture/1/0/e/b/restinpeace.gif (R.I.P.)LWW

SKennedy
11-16-2007, 02:42 PM
I don't really have a problem with teaching evolution in the schools. After all, I am a biology major. However, it should be taught as theory, not fact. I also don't have a problem with schools not teaching "creationism" in whatever form...Parents can teach it to their children. "Creation" is faith-based. I really don't want the public schools teaching faith-based dogma. They should teach science based upon facts...and present theory as theory, and stay away from faith. If I disagree, I can enroll my kids in a private school that practices otherwise.
And yes, I am a conservative christian.

Drop1
11-17-2007, 08:14 PM
The Design is rather simple minded,I'm sure God can do better. I kind of like the fact the Catholic Church,gave a limited stamp of approval to evolution,with the condition,the theory was consistent to certain tenants of the Faith. I miss John Paul 11, he looked like a Pope,even though,he put some words of the Apostles into the mouths of others. Good PR. man,on the fast track to becoming a Saint. I also like Saint Juan Diego,even though he never existed.

pooltchr
11-18-2007, 06:44 AM
Since both are really theories, I see no reason that both can't be compatable. Maybe God created life and planned for life to evolve. That would make both theories factual.

It's sad that people will accept anything as truth, simply because scientists say it is so. Wasn't it a scientist that told us at one time the world was flat?????

Steve

SKennedy
11-19-2007, 11:16 AM
Flat earth was a theory, but folks thought it was fact. Creationism can be a theory as well, but is based more upon faith. Science is about theory and testing these theories in measured ways to either prove or disprove, etc., while faith requires a belief not based upon any so-called facts or science. That's not to say that the 2 are incompatible. I'm just saying that science should be taught in schools...including evolution. Creationism can also be a scientific theory and I don't have a problem with it being taught as well, but if it isn't, that's OK. It can be taught or discussed outside the classroom. If parents did their job, we wouldn't need to discuss matters of religion, morals, and sex being taught in the classroom.

Chopstick
11-19-2007, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> Science is about theory and testing these theories in measured ways to either prove or disprove, etc. <hr /></blockquote>

A theory can also be validated if it makes predictions of results that can then be measured and confirmed.

Sooo...Number of confirmed results predicted by the theory of global warming in the last thirty years, with the biggest super computers running the models and the best scientists working on it~~~~~~&gt; ZERO

The results predicted by the models themselves vary by a factor of four hundred percent. That alone is proof to me that nobody really knows. Oh, but there are plenty of people that are ready to hit you in the head with a stick if you don't believe in it.

My point in relation to this thread is that an individual should be free to think or believe in what they chose without it having been forced upon them or be persecuted because of it.

nAz
11-19-2007, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> I'm just saying that science should be taught in schools...including evolution. Creationism can also be a scientific theory and I don't have a problem with it being taught as well, but if it isn't, that's OK. <hr /></blockquote>

how can creationism be a scientific theory /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

you know i have a big problem when people try to substitute non-science for real science we should all have a big problem with this. people becoming scientifically illiterate will only hurt us all in the end and would just be a huge time waster in this short life we all have. besides all this the public school sys. in this country is in bad enough shape we don't need to confuse these students with all this pseudoscience.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> It can be taught or discussed outside the classroom. If parents did their job, we wouldn't need to discuss matters of religion, morals, and sex being taught in the classroom. <hr /></blockquote> agreed!

SKennedy
11-19-2007, 02:18 PM
What? Independence, free thinking and individualism? Items preached by the left, but for some reason never practiced?
I'm an idiot because I don't believe man is the cause of global warming. But, I don't think I've ever called someone who does believe otherwise an idiot. One of us will be right. In the end, I think the one that was wrong is an idiot. That could very well be me..... But it's too early to be calling the results just yet.

Deeman3
11-19-2007, 03:17 PM
My view is, like faith, it really does not matter what you believe if you have room for other's beliefs.

Some form of evolution must have validity as the physical evidence has merit. I don't base my faith on proving or disproving such things nor even hang my hat on things like the Bible saying the earth was round a thousand years before Columbus. "on the circle of the earth."

What I do believe is that there is room for many beliefs but that science and philosophy need some separation, not a total war between them. Science must be demonstraightable observations and evidence must support some theory. I think science supports evolution in some respects so should not be demonised but taught as the best evidence by teachers with a possible mention that there are other beliefs (Christian, Islamic, hindu and Buddist). I just want a nod, not a prayer.

That being said. It is the very limit of science that they can comment on most observations with absolute certainty over the years and then be proved wrong in a generation or two just to have the next truth emerge.

Now we can trace the origins of our universe back 13.7 billion years and say, with almost absolute certainty that our entire universe, 160 billion light years of space, rock, minerals, gasses, orange flamingos and blond strippers originated from a pinpoint smaller than a pencil eraser. Regression of what is apparently happening now makes that the latest theory if you ignore a few of the modern concepts of space, matter and physics and, at the same time, violate all the observable behaviour we have seen in all our history on the cosmic limits of speed, material distribution, etc.

One could argue that science is adapting their laws of physics to what they can figure, with our very limited brains, to fit the apparent observations. In this time of outrageous string theories to explain inconsistencies in present day physics, is it not more outrageous to beleive that we may not understand the how and why of the universe as much as science would have us believe?

I don't want force any schools to stop teaching evolution (Scopes has not been tried lately) but to ask that science not close the door on anyone's ability to hear and decide for themselves what is believable.

It is easy to say and make predictions of planetary orbit consistency, for instance, if your math was built by observation of what is happening, not on the fact is seems impossible for that consistency to endure for millions of years when it seems only to occur in our little solar system that happens to protect the only life we really know exists. Think about how many variables have to stay with in a couple of percentage points for hundreds of thousands of years just to keep us alive. Some do say it's just dumb luck and they have that right. However, don't make too much fun of the many of us who seriously entertain the idea that there might be a purpose to all this accidental accuracy. Of course, I don't feel strongly enough about it to cut my opponenst's head off or anything....

SKennedy
11-19-2007, 03:50 PM
String theory confusing? Try the concept of 10 or more parallel universes, the concept of which was, or is still being, espoused by some.

I am a christian. I also believe in evolution with respect that adaptations most definitely do occur and that these adaptations over time become very significant. However, I don't think man evolved from apes......granted there are some people I have known that I would swear had recently and minimally evolved from slime mold, etc.
I think dinosaurs roamed the earth at one time. How that exactly fits with Biblical beliefs and christianity I don't know. Some people think that as science uncovers new facts it counters and/or diminishes what is found in the Bible. For the most part, I do not think that notion is true. In many cases it (science) actually confirms by beliefs. The more we dig into the micro, nano, and even samller world that makes up our world, the more we discover we don't know and are in awe at what actually exists and the forces that are present and working in unknown symbiotic ways. It's the same way when we focus on the "macro"....space and how many galaxies exist...and blackholes that are eating entire galaxies and more.....all this is random? My opinion....no. I also don't think God has a hands off approach. He controls everything. And yes, evil and misery is part of the equation. If you believe the Bible, then God created Satan. Why? I don't know except that without it, how can you understand the opposite? How can you make a choice? One thing he does allow....he allows us free-will to choose.

Now, I have a headache....let's go back to something less tedious and easier to understand ...like squirt and swerve!

S0Noma
11-19-2007, 03:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> My view is, like faith, it really does not matter what you believe if you have room for other's beliefs.

Some form of evolution must have validity as the physical evidence has merit. I don't base my faith on proving or disproving such things nor even hang my hat on things like the Bible saying the earth was round a thousand years before Columbus. "on the circle of the earth."
<hr /></blockquote>

Hi Dee,

It's a good thing that you don't because, in fact, we humans measured the earth's circumference accurately a couple of hundred years before the traditional date for the birth of Christ.

The existence of this information was well documented in the Greek (ie-civilized) part of the world at that time. While it was not known in the rest of the world it lets us tell something about the various parts of the Bible.

The parts that were written in countries that enjoyed the advantages of a Greek education show an understanding of the earth as a sphere. In fact, when scholars see that understanding mentioned in the Bible, they know the source of the author's education.

Other parts of the Bible clearly demonstrate that the authors did not know this fact, so we can tell that they were members of more primitive cultures.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9032863/Eratosthenes-Of-Cyrene)

nAz
11-19-2007, 04:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> My view is, like faith, it really does not matter what you believe if you have room for other's beliefs.<hr /></blockquote>

I totally agree... as long as it's kept out of Government and public supported institutions.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>What I do believe is that there is room for many beliefs but that science and philosophy need some separation, not a total war between them. Science must be demonstraightable observations and evidence must support some theory. I think science supports evolution in some respects so should not be demonised but taught as the best evidence by teachers with a possible mention that there are other beliefs (Christian, Islamic, hindu and Buddist). I just want a nod, not a prayer.

That being said. It is the very limit of science that they can comment on most observations with absolute certainty over the years and then be proved wrong in a generation or two just to have the next truth emerge.

Now we can trace the origins of our universe back 13.7 billion years and say, with almost absolute certainty that our entire universe, 160 billion light years of space, rock, minerals, gasses, orange flamingos and blond strippers originated from a pinpoint smaller than a pencil eraser. Regression of what is apparently happening now makes that the latest theory if you ignore a few of the modern concepts of space, matter and physics and, at the same time, violate all the observable behaviour we have seen in all our history on the cosmic limits of speed, material distribution, etc. <hr /></blockquote>

that just it though science doesn't always get it right and it sometimes needs to be retested and updated to explain theories but you can't ever do that with ID, it seems that with ID all you need to believe it that the spaghetti monster created it all and it can't be tested... thayts not science thats faith.

Inflation theory (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101inflation.html) good read if your interested... btw I'm gonna try to get a grant to build my own particle accelerator and see if i can create inflatrons.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>
I don't want force any schools to stop teaching evolution (Scopes has not been tried lately) but to ask that science not close the door on anyone's ability to hear and decide for themselves what is believable.
<hr /></blockquote>

Hasn't Intelligent Design has been proven wrong... so why keep at it? when it comes down to it Isn't it all faith based that alone is enough not to teach it in science class... maybe move it over to an elective course on comparative religion, but please don't call it science.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>
I don't feel strongly enough about it to cut my opponenst's head off or anything....<hr /></blockquote>

me too I just want to castrate them so they can't breed any more /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif


<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
11-19-2007, 04:57 PM
Post deleted by wolfdancer

S0Noma
11-19-2007, 05:03 PM
Maybe?

http://i3.tinypic.com/6psvg9z.jpg

nAz
11-19-2007, 06:41 PM
lol that chess one is damn good!


new theory of creation... http://www.metacafe.com/watch/135713/family_guy_the_big_bang/

pooltchr
11-19-2007, 06:56 PM
nAz,
Just a little food for thought here. If you are right, neither of us has to worry...but if you are wrong, one of us has a LOT to worry about.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

Deeman3
11-20-2007, 08:48 AM
nAz,

I am familiar with inflation theory and it's suggestion on the size and speed of universal expansion. I just don't know if it will hold up but probably will be gone by the time the next theory hits.

Again, not that it's important but I don't know that intelligent design has been proven wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that type theory on either side wrong. I will agree that perhaps it is better covered in a theological classroom than in science and, as well, it won't kill even the students who have faith to understand the "accepted" science, to not teach them this would leave them disarmed for a life in science. I see nothing wrong with moving it into the theology circulum rather than the science classroom as long as it is not restricted from intellegent discussion at some level.

As far as making it an "agenda" item on either side, I think that is just a manipulative POV by the right, as wrong as any agenda on the left would be to say, without cause, that science does have any advanced understanding of origins of the universe beyond some pretty interesting guesses.

Now, before you tell me how much we do know, I understand, as well as layman can with my limited knowledge, about background radiation, inflation, observed expansion and the like. My contention is only that science can only fit observations of activity and attempt to wind the clock backward with theory of what happened earlier. Does that mean we should not do so? No, but it, science, is limited by it's understanding, just as we of faith are. Our contention that there may be a divine hand in all this, in my tiny mind, is that the possibility of that intervention has some validity perhaps as much as the natural creation theory. However, in the end, I would agree that teaching your child that, other than the most recent science, would leave the door open for hundreds of religeons to agenda their views and that would not advance science.

I do think we are closer on what we think should be taught than you might think. I am just more skeptical about the accepted science than you may be. That, of course, does not prove any faith based science, so mention it, but don't teach it as fact. Any secular or person of faith that can't weed out the difference won't make it in science anyway. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman3
11-20-2007, 09:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>
It's a good thing that you don't because, in fact, we humans measured the earth's circumference accurately a couple of hundred years before the traditional date for the birth of Christ. <font color="blue">

While I certainly can't win a teological argument with anyone, I was not, of course, referring to anything Christian as the quote I mentioned is from Isaih, of the Hebrew Bible, predating Christ by a few hundred years in it's writing. </font color>

The existence of this information was well documented in the Greek (ie-civilized) part of the world at that time. While it was not known in the rest of the world it lets us tell something about the various parts of the Bible.

<font color="blue"> A also know of the Greek view of the world vs. the post Dark Ages knowledge of the Europeans. As I said, I don't hang my hat on this but. as well, don't reject the fact that much of the Bible was written by authors of various levels of knowledge of science.

I think my bigger point is that none of us, despite the supposed advanced nature of our present level of knowledge, knows much about the true origins of the universe despite the excellent ideas and science us humans have accumulated over the centuries. I bet the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians and even the early pioneers of planetary motion were sure they "knew" the science they had unearthed, just to find (science overall) later that they were wrong.

In the end, it will remain much a curosity as each of us dies and the next generation makes their theories and guesses. My bet is we are still not as close as we believe to understanding life, much less the origins of the universe we live in. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
11-21-2007, 10:14 AM
If you had watched the Docu you would know that Creationism/ID is NOT a science. Basically it could be labled as mumbo-jumbo.

[ QUOTE ]
NARRATOR: As the plaintiffs testified, that quest to investigate the unknown has led to the discovery of some of the strongest evidence for evolution.

Darwin was convinced that species evolve over time—through natural selection acting on inherited traits. But he had no idea how those traits arose—or how they were passed from generation to generation.

When 20th century scientists discovered the role DNA plays in heredity, they founded a new science called genetics—that put Darwin's theory to the test.

Virtually every cell in every living thing contains chromosomes—which are made of densely packed strands of DNA that function as a blueprint of the individual organism's characteristics.

During reproduction, chromosomes from each parent replicate and shuffle their parts to produce new chromosomes.

Then, each parent passes one chromosome to offspring.

But the process is imperfect.

Along the way, DNA is subject to random mutations—or mistakes - which give each offspring its own unique blueprint.

Sometimes this produces characteristics in offspring that are benign.

Other times it produces harmful characteristics—like a misshapen wing.

But occasionally, the process gives rise to a beneficial trait—for example, a butterfly whose coloration mimics another species that tastes bad to birds.

About a hundred years after Darwin proposed that natural selection acts on new traits appearing in a population, genetics revealed the biological mechanism that gives rise to those traits in the first place.

ACTOR KEN MILLER: And therefore you might say that when modern genetics came into being everything in Darwin's theory was at risk, could have been overturned if genetics turned out to contradict the essential elements of evolutionary theory, but it didn't contradict them, it confirmed them in great detail.

NARRATOR: And as Miller would testify—a genetics paper published less than a year before the trial - had confirmed what has long been the most inflammatory part of Darwin's theory:—the common ancestry of humans and apes.

That paper explored a curious discrepancy in our chromosomes.

The cells of all great apes—like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans—contain 24 pairs of chromosomes.

If humans share a common ancestor with apes, you'd expect us to have the same number. But surprisingly, human cells contain only 23 pairs.

ACTOR KEN MILLER: The question is, if evolution is right about this common ancestry idea, where'd the chromosome go? Well, evolution makes a testable prediction, and that is, somewhere in the human genome we ought to be able to find a piece of Scotch tape holding together two chromosomes so that our 24 pairs -two of them was pasted together to form just 23. And if we can't find that, then the hypothesis of common ancestry is wrong and evolution is mistaken.

NARRATOR: To solve this riddle for the court, Miller would show how scientists discovered remnants of our evolutionary past buried in the very structure of a chromosome carried by all humans.

If all is normal, on the ends of every chromosome you should find special genetic markers, or sequences of DNA, called telomeres.

And in their middles, you should find different genetic markers called centromeres.

But if a mutation occurred in the past causing two pairs of chromosomes to fuse—we should remnants of those genetic markers: telomeres not only at the ends of the new chromosome, but also at its middle.

And not one, but two centromeres.

Finding a structure like this in our chromosomes would explain why humans have one pair fewer than the great apes.

ACTOR KEN MILLER: And if we don't find that, then evolution is in trouble. Next slide. Lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2. All of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.

So the case is closed in a most beautiful way, and that is, the prediction of evolution of common ancestry is fulfilled by that lead-pipe evidence that you see here in terms of tying everything together, that our chromosome formed by the fusion from our common ancestor is Chromosome Number 2. Evolution has made a testable prediction and it has passed.

ACTOR VIC WALCZAK: So modern genetics and molecular biology actually support evolutionary theory?

ACTOR KEN MILLER: They support it in great detail. And the closer that we can get to looking at the details of the human genome, the more powerfulthe evidence has become.

NEIL SHUBIN: Darwin didn't even know about molecular biology and DNA, yet that's where some of the most profound evidence is being uncovered today. Think about that. That somebody in the 1800s made predictions that are being confirmed in molecular biology labs today. That's a very profound statement of a very successful theory.

KEN MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is.

NARRATOR: And the deep understanding of evolution as proposed by Darwin has, with genetics, unlocked many of the secrets of life.

ROB PENNOCK (Michigan State University): It's an explanatory framework within which all the rest of biology fits. It's something that we use in practical biological applications. Medicine, agriculture, industry. When you're getting a flu vaccine, that really depended upon evolutionary knowledge. In many, many specific ways, evolution makes a practical difference. It's not just something that happened in the past, evolution's happening now. <hr /></blockquote>


Case closed.

Q

Chopstick
11-21-2007, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

<font color="blue"> I think my bigger point is that none of us, despite the supposed advanced nature of our present level of knowledge, knows much about the true origins of the universe despite the excellent ideas and science us humans have accumulated over the centuries. I bet the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians and even the early pioneers of planetary motion were sure they "knew" the science they had unearthed, just to find (science overall) later that they were wrong.

In the end, it will remain much a curosity as each of us dies and the next generation makes their theories and guesses. My bet is we are still not as close as we believe to understanding life, much less the origins of the universe we live in. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Infinity has some interesting properties. If you sit around and think about it long enough (maybe a little too long in my case) it just becomes a matter of common sense. The universe is infinite. Therefore knowledge of the universe is also infinite. If we each held the end of an string in our hand and the other end of our string stretched to infinity, and your string was shorter than mine or you were to grasp your string a foot or a million miles up the line, would you be closer to the other end than me. No. No matter where you are on that line, the distance to the end is still infinity.

Knowledge is the same way. No matter how much you know, the distance between what you know and what there is to be known will always be infinite. Knowledge can never provide the answer to these kinds of questions, although the pursuit of it is an amusing endeavor.

SKennedy
11-21-2007, 01:24 PM
I would agree, but add the caveat that it only applies to mortal beings.