HOME | DD
XDiaLinnX — Misguided Parenting is the real problem.
Published: 2013-11-03 18:51:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 8363; Favourites: 311; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
All this talk about forcing children to believe in gods/God, it's a tragic thing, I agree. I feel horrible when I hear people are being forced to say what they don't believe in, just like many of you who had overzealous families that made you go to church without your consent. And I will say it's wrong to force children to engage in what they don't understand.But guys, there is nothing harmful about teaching religion to children.
"But teaching children religion slows human progress! In order to kill religion we must stop teaching it to kids!"
It does not slow so-called "progress". People who actually believe this, you have to realize that by killing off a religion, you or other people just end up creating and teaching ANOTHER one. Religion has been with us since the ANCIENT times, and no matter how much you try to be rid of it, it will always be replaced by some other dogmatic belief system, with or without gods. See also fav.me/d4xgjt3
"But children do not need to learn from such a bloody and gorey book such as the Bible!"
I agree, many children are not ready to experience the deep contexts of the Bible, but it doesn't harm the child to give the a rated G version that they can enjoy and understand:
No blood and gore in this little beauty. Antitheists and fundemental Christians, did you really expect a kid to be able to comprehend the adult version?
"But children do not need to be brainwashed by Christian camps!"
What about atheist children camps that have been around since 1996? They do just as much preaching about how God doesn't exist, it's liable to be called "brain-washing" as well when you put them both into that sort of context. The truth is, kids want to learn and be around other kids, and camps are the perfect opportunity for that. I strongly oppose camps that act more like boot-camps in general, so I can understand the concern inside children camps very much! Parents must choose wisely and know exactly what their children are being taught about when it comes to that sort of thing, so children can avoid being put into compromising situations.
" But children are taught that being an atheist is bad! They are trapped into thinking something they may not actually believe in! "
And I don't think it's right for that to happen. Alot of that behavior does not come from the actual message of Christianity, but from the parents themselves, because of THEIR faith. If a parent is THAT intimidated by someone who lacks the faith, their own faith is liable to be weaker than they wanted, and that is a problem they need to deal with themselves instead of bringing their children into it. Having doubt is not a bad thing, it's something everyone experiences at some point, and children should/are being taught to explore their beliefs. See also fav.me/d50o69g
I could go on and on about it, but here is where I think the real issue is. Misguided parenting.
Related content
Comments: 318
True, teaching them *about* religion isn't.
But *forcing* them to subscribe to your specific version pretty much is. I mean, what if I raised my child to believe all black people were cursed sub-humans? Instead of telling them "Well we believe _______ but you should believe what you choose to." (within reason, I can already smell the strawmans)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I grew up going to church as a kid. When I got older, I chose to get baptized. No one forced me. My parents were surprised that I made this decision on my own. But I chose it, no one else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People, parents are not forcing religion in the little ones, they are getting them interested in it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If parents teach their children about their religion and drills it into them so that they cannot form their own beliefs, then it is nothing but brainwashing, which can be considered abuse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But forcing your child to be in that religion is bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think that the responsibility of teaching a religion should lie in the hands of the parent not an educational organisation, school etc. Atheism isn't technically taught in schools as I have never heard my Science teacher say anything like 'God doesn't exist' or something along those lines. EVER. People just get confused. Most of the science topics are mostly about our bodies and common sense information that is important to know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gosh, what isn't child abuse these days?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
How religion can be child abuse to you? Do the religion hurts the children? Reading the bible hurts children?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Um, excuse me, did you judt give your child LUNCH?! You do know that people have DIED eating lunch before?! CHILD ABUSE!!!!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"What about atheist children camps that have been around since 1996? They do just as much preaching about how God doesn't exist, it's liable to be called "brain-washing""
No.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't remember what we were talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you, sir. I believe that if the public school system won't have God, the LEAST they could do is teach from both sides of the issue, not just filling kids heads with all sorts of rubbish that hasn't even been proven. My science teacher did that last year. He taught us from a Christian standpoint, and from a secular standpoint, and pointed out the (many) flaws in the secular view. ... Sorry, kinda off-topic, I suppose. But that's my two cents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He taught you from a Christian stand point in a public school? Wouldn't he get fired?
I'm not trying to troll, I'm just a bit confused is all
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, he showed us how public schools would teach while we were in a Christian school. He didn't teach us the way public schools do, he just showed us how they taught. Sorry if I confused you ^_^'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ohhh. That makes more sense now. Thank you 
I went to a private Christian school for like, a week. ._.' They do a bunch of things different there... I think we had to wear uniforms but I don't remember. I was only about 6 or 7... Thank goodness I'm home schooled now... Stereotypes not applicable or true
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think public school should adopt or enforce any religion, including atheism, but simply saying what religion believes what is fine. It's just not a public school's place to tell kids what to believe.
Atheism is already taught in public schools, so why not branch out and teach other things as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Atheism is taught in public school? How is "not believing in the existence of a deity due to the lack of empirical evidence of their existence" taught in school?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just like you said: not believing in the existence of a deity due to the "lack of empirical evidence of their existence." Most public school teach it outright. In typical hypocritical fashion, they also demand that student accept Macroevolution as the only possible answer to the existence of the universe, even when there is a massive lack of empirical evidence on to prove that it happened (it has not been observed, even though scientists have replicated the conditions in which it must have taken place in). It requires an amount of faith to believe either idea, and schools push only one. If they were truly open-minded, they'd give all explanations. Anything less is teaching a specific worldview.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hum, there is quite a few...problems in your claims here....
What you call "Macro-evolution" is called, in biology, speciation, the formation of new species. It in no way explains the universe.
And speciation has been observed, heck, there is a few thousands biology peer review papers about the numerous cases on the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) database and it's free for everyone to look at it.
In a science class, you teach about things that are demonstrable with evidence, as such, gods and their mythology are taught in a society class because, after all, a religion is merely a subpart of a culture, like other myths and legends.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very true. However, science has not demonstrated Macro-evolution, thus, by your own standards, it shouldn't be taught in science class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, speciation, what you call macro-evolution, has been demonstrated...several times.
Hence why evolution is taught in science class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please give me an example where one type of animal (such as a fish) has transformed into another type of animal (such as an amphibian).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see, you are using a strawman (a kind into another kind) instead of evolution (formation of a new subgroup in the previous group).
Per instance, you are an homo sapiens. Homo sapiens are part of the hominids, the hominids are part of the great apes, the great apes are part of the haplorhinis, the haplorhinis are part of the placental mammals, the placental mammals are part of the synapsids, the synapsids are part of the tetrapods, the tetrapods (those would includes your amphibians) are part of the vertebrates (these would be the level of your bony fish) and the vertebrates are parts of the chordates. And this is to name only a few of the groups.
Perhaps you could come back after reading on what evolution actually is instead of the strawman you just used?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I asked you a question. It's not a straw man argument to ask a question that the other party is unable to answer.
Biological classification is not Macro-evolution. You haven't given me an example of a time when scientists observed an creature transform into a different creature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your question is based on a strawman of what evolution is, thus why I explained what evolution was. It's not a transformation from one creature to another (that's pokémon) but the formation of a new species from an existing one (it is still part of the previous group but is now considered a new specie).
You denying that speciation occurred (such as the ones observed in the Lenski experiment or in the heliconius butterfly populations) won't make them false, it just makes you wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's Micro-evolution. Different species of finches can arise from the finch family. However, they are still the same type of animal.
Macro-evolution demands a change in type. It says that all things are descended from single-celled organisms, which are completely different types of creatures than us, for example. An example that would be easier to observe would be a fish turning into an amphibian, but we have observed neither.
Macro-evolution is plausible, but as we have not observed it, it requires an element of faith to believe it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, speciation is what you call "macroevolution". Per instance, the tetrapods are part of the vertebrates and lifeforms such as the tiktaalik demonstrate the transition toward the tetrapods with their upward neck, flattened head and bony wrist. However, it's numerous vertebrate traits would still lead some to think it was not part of the tetrapods yet.
Now, will you stop using a strawman and finally use what evolution really is or will you continue to be dishonest?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But we haven't seen that happen. We have fossils and we've assumed that it happened, but we haven't observed it.
Asking that you give an example of your argument is not strawman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the fossils are evidence of that happening thus we have observed it. But direct speciation has been observed, per instance, in the ara-3 population of the Lenski long term evolution experiment.
And the strawman is not asking for an example, the strawman is what you describe evolution as.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We've assumed that those fossils are evidence, which they might be, but we didn't see the creatures change, so we can only make an educated guess. All those E. Coli bacteria are still E. Coli.
Okay, I'll give you that. What's your definition of evolution, then? And don't tell me "science," because science is a method.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"All those E. Coli bacteria are still E. Coli."
And you are still an Eukaryote.... We've been over this before.
This definition of the scientific theory of evolution would describe it well :
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection (and other selective pressure) acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species(speciation).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, so you mean, Micro-evolution? Yes, that has been observed. People have taken that information and extrapolated theories from it, and while those theories are plausible, they are being taught as fact in schools. If schools were truly public and open to all ideas, they'd teach all ideas, not just one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, the formation of new species is what you call macroevolution and it's been observed. It's a fact that life evolves, there is no debates about it in science. The scientific theory of evolution is the current model which encompass every single things observed in biology. You not accepting it won't make it false. Deal with it.
And in school you teach what has evidence, hence why evolution is taught and the silly religious mythologies are relegated to the class involving the fiction of the different cultures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, not species. Types. There are different species that can interbreed and adapt into one another, and that's micro-evolution. We've seen that. We have yet seen new types emerge. Your assumptions and faith in the theories do not make them true. Deal with it.
If they teach only the facts, why do they present unobserved theories as facts? I have nothing against presenting the ideas to children, but they should not be told "we know 100% that this happened," because we don't. Evolutionists are constantly refining the theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Speciation implies that the new population cannot interbreed with the previous one. Thus, what you call "macroevolution" has been demonstrated.
And teaching what is demonstrated to have happened is what happens in school. And why do you complain about scientific theories (which, need I remind you, are what explains the facts)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But they're still the same creature. Micro-evolution is when different species emerge and many times they can't interbreed, but they are still the same type. For example, we haven't seen a fish mutate into an amphibian.
Theories are fine, and I'm all for showing kids all the different ideas that scientists have come up with to explain the facts, but as it is now, public schools are only showing one idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you using your strawman again? There is no such things as "type" or "kind" in biology.
Do I need to explain to you, again, how evolution works and how you are still an eukaryote?
And again, empirical evidence demonstrates that tetrapods (which includes amphibians, sauropsidae and synapsids) arose from vertebrate (which includes all tetrapods and what you consider fish).
And if you mean by "public schools are only showing one idea" that they don't teach "god did it" it's simply because "god did it" is an argument from ignorance. It has no evidence to support it... unlike scientific theories which are model based on empirical evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are types and kinds. They're called families. KPCOFGS
I don't advocate schools teaching "God did it." That would be forcing one idea on them. I advocate schools teaching, "this could have happened, or this could have happened," and then let kids choose for themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, in science, no such things as "types or kinds". In phylogenetic, there are families...and below family are genus and below genus are species. Above family is found order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain. Of course, there are subfamilies between family and genus.
Per instance, us homo sapiens are part of the hominidae... the great ape family. It also contains the pans (chimpanzee), the gorrilas and the ourangutangs.
Also, your "let the kids choose for themselves" is bullshit. You don't choose what is real and demonstrable. It just is. If your personal belief contradicts what is demonstrable with evidence, then it means that your belief are wrong. That is all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wait, are you telling me that biological classification is not science?
The same evidence used to "demonstrate" Macroevolution is evidence for Microevolution (seeing as scientists take such evidence and extrapolate unobserved ideas from it), and Microevolution is supported by any religious person with half a brain. Thus, it supports intelligent design theories such as those put forward by Christians, Muslims, etc. To force only one idea on children and to tell them "everyone else is wrong," is very closed-mind and the argument could be made that it's child abuse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, in science, there is no such things as "kind" nor "type". I already explained how phylogeny works. Don't make me say things I did not say.
And you saying it was not observed do not make it real. I already presented cases of observed speciation. You denying it simply means you are wrong.
And there is no such thing as an intelligent design theory in science. It's not even qualified as an hypothesis. And to teach what is demonstrable with empirical evidence (such as the scientific theory of evolution which is accepted by everyone in the scientific fields related to biology) is not forcing one idea on people. It's teaching what is demonstrated.
Why do you deny what is accepted as the only model in science which explains the diversity of life?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are kinds and types. They're called families. We don't have to see a life form evolve into an existing life form, but we do have to see major changes that make it a new family, at the very least, for Macro-evolution to be observed. As it is now, we've only observed Micro-evolution. Speciation merely develops new species, and species is the lowest level of the phylogeny tree. We have yet to see anything higher up, and that is what the entire Macro-evolution theory hangs on. Evolution requires changes on the Kingdom level, and we have yet to see changes even past species, the lowest level of any phylogeny tree.
Intelligent Design is a theory, actually. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not a theory. A theory is merely an explanation for how or why something is. Theories cannot become laws, nor can hypothesis become theories. An hypothesis is an idea that supports a theory, and a theory supports a possible law. For example, it is a law that the universe started at some point. Everyone agrees about that, (except for some New Age religions.) There are multiple theories that explain how the universe began, such as Darwinian Evolution, 6-Day Creation (also called Intelligent Design Theory), Day-Age Creation, Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, etc. All of these theories have merit in some ways (they have been demonstrated) and they all have failings in others (they have things that are unexplained). However, seeing as they all have merit, it's not right to force just one of these ideas in a public school. If it were a Christian school or an Atheist school sure, do whatever you want, but public schools are meant for kids from all walks of life. They are intended to broaden children's minds to many ideas and then let them choose for themselves.
Click here to learn more about the differences between laws, theories, and hypothesis: web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/87…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Once again, you've shown you do not know what evolution or phylogenetic is.
Early life was unicellular, it's doesn't start immediately at the specie level. Speciation occurs leading to the diversification between bacterias, archeas and eukaryotes (eukaryotes are actually several unicellular life forms in a symbiotic relationships as demonstrated by the presence of the mytochondria). As it developed, the eukaryotes speciated toward the three great kingdom of life, plants, animals and fungus.
It cannot go backward and change toward bacterias or archeas.
Do you finally understand or will you continue with your strawman?
Also, you seem to be confusing, once again, the term theory with scientific theory. Intelligent design never ever was considered a scientific theory.
An hypothesis, is an idea of how something observed works. You test it via the scientific method. If the evidence supports that hypothesis, it continues on and eventually becomes a scientific theory. As such, intelligent design never passed the hypothesis level while evolution is a scientific theory which explains the diversity of life.
Also, evolution explains, as I've said numerous times now, the diversity of life, not the expansion of the universe. That's the big bang.
It's not being insulting here, but I have to ask, did you even read about those subject beforehand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An argument is not a strawman just because you can't answer it.
I understand perfectly. You must be very old to have seen all that take place.
Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. The evidence does support it. In fact, it holds up to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereas Macro-Evolution does not. Please educate yourself on what a theory is, scientific or not: web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/87…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A strawman is when you invent your own version of a thing and attack it. Your claim that evolution implies a jump from a level others than the one the population speciating is part of is a strawman and demonstrate you do not understand how evolution works.
And there is no need to see it happening in direct. All you need is to compare the genome of members of different species, find the similar genes and, especially, common endogenous retroviral insertion (ERVs, which is something that couldn't have occurred if there was an intelligent designer) and make a phylogenetic tree based on the results.
Care to back up your claims that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory? All you need to do is provide some scientific peer review papers on the subject. Remember, scientific peer review papers, no apologetic or ID movements propaganda. Your failure to do so will results in your admitting that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
And care to back up your claim that the second law of thermodynamic is violated by the scientific theory of evolution? Again, a scientific peer review papers is needed for that. Do remember that our planet is an open system receiving energy from the sun in your research.
Have fun researching.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe, but what you have been describing is clearly micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. We have seen evidence for micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr… , www.dummies.com/how-to/content… , www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macro… , www.icr.org/article/what-diffe…
Peer-reviewed research (web links):
genome.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/M…
www.nature.com/nature/journal/…
Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Scientific Anthologies.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals, or Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Books Supportive of Intelligent Design
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I described is macro as the berkeley site demonstrates. Same with talkorigin (and no one cares about ICR, a religious websties without scientific credentials). Why do you deny what the very websites you posted talks about?
Now, your first link to "peer review documentation".
Stephen Meyer's books is not a peer review paper. It is a self-published one which did not pass the peer review process. It has the same validity as a new age book. (But the review of the book do destroy Meyer's ideas and demonstrates the Intelligent design is not scientific.)
The "second paper"...is actually one saying how Meyer's paper was not scientific and how the editor is also known as a publisher in a creation magazine... Therefor no peer review there.
Also...copying from the discovery institute website? Really? Oh well, let's dissect their claim.
Warning : The journal BIO-Complexity is actually published by the discovery institute, thus, none of those text are peer reviewed.
Philosophy papers has nothing to do with evolution or biology or intelligent design. Thus all of Craig's papers can be dimissed.
"David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?""
Not a single mention of intelligent design. Several tries to define what life is. Tries to claim there is something other than what is materials but fails to back up his claim.
"Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism""
A text by someone from the discovery institute whose entire arguments can be summed up as arguments from personal ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity and strawmaning evolution (it explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life)
"Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’”"
Nothing about intelligent design. Heck, Behe even says evolution happens in this paper.
"Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology"
Nothing about intelligent design and several mention on how evolution happens. There is a link to an intelligent design website in the reference. So no peer review for intelligent design here.
"The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search"
Despite it being written by Demski, nothing about intelligent design nor support intelligent design in this paper. Heck, it's not even about biology.
"Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,”"
A text about computer programming and search query...nothing about biology or evolution or intelligent design.
"William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,”"
Again, programmation and not about biology. Nothing about intelligent design.
"David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,”
Nothing supporting intelligent design again.
"David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)"
Nothing supporting intelligent design, nothing about biology in general either.
"David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,"
Still nothing about intelligent design nor evolution. Seems to argue against the RNA world hypothesis but provide no actual supporting data.
Do you start seeing a pattern when it comes to Abel's papers?
Already went through 20 of those papers and there is still not a single ones supporting "intelligent design", about "intelligent design" or published in an actual scientific peer review papers.
(edit)
A new day dawns and more papers to review !
""A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration""
In the very beginning, there is an editor's note saying that what is written in the paper does not agree with what the journal or reviewers agrees on when it comes to bird evolution. Heck, it even says that this paper "doesn't give complete justification for the alternate view", thus, not a scientific paper.
"A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems"
Nothing about intelligent design in this "paper" written by McIntosh whose main argument is a long debunked creationism claim : The second law of thermodynamic contradicts evolution...even if he admits in his paper that the earth is an open system...thus making it not contradict the second law of thermodynamic. Then again, the guy also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and flat.
"Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints"
Comparing protein formation to a program in Unix to test an algorithm. Nothing about or supporting intelligent design.
"Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica"
No mention nor support of intelligent design. Rather Sterberg is trying to define what the term "information" and "coding" are in biology.
"Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins"
This paper not only do not mention nor support intelligent design, but it states on several occasions how proteins are due to evolution.
"Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz-Albert Becker, “Carnivorous Plants”"
Nothing about intelligent design nor supporting it. Talks about the evolution of plants and Ekkehard makes an argument of personal incredulity but still supports evolution.
"Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,”"
Nothing about intelligent design there either. Mostly questions the event of rapid evolution known as the "cambrian explosion".
Result for this morning : Still not a single paper in favour of intelligent design. It seems the ID movement is more about trying to find fault in evolution and using computer science than actually supporting their claim.
(more edit)
With a new evening...more papers to review.
"Felipe Houat de Brito, Artur Noura Teixeira, Otávio Noura Teixeira, Roberto C. L. Oliveira, “A Fuzzy Intelligent Controller for Genetic Algorithm Parameter"
Nothing about intelligent design but a rather interesting paper on how evolution explains the evolution of human society.
"Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler, Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic Differences betweenMisopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis"
More about Dollo's laws, but nothing about intelligent design.
"Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation"
The only thing about "intelligent design" is in the reference section. However, nothing in that paper about nor support intelligent design again.
"Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent"
Nothing about intelligent design either, some arguments from personal incredulity. Nothing against evolution either. Mostly a mathematician trying to talk about biochemistry and failing.
"Kirk Durston and David K. Y. Chiu, “A Functional Entropy Model for Biological Sequences,”"
Numerous mathematical formulas which supports evolution. Not a single mention of intelligent design.
"John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,”
A paper by the now deceased Davidson who do not back up his claims anywhere. Heck, the guy admit evolution happens but refuse the mechanism currently understood in the model. Nothing supporting intelligent design there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't go to the discovery institute website.
Excuse me, but everyone knows that when an argument is made against one theory, it is in support of another. Since these are written by Creationists and are addressing problems with Macro-evolution, they are obviously in support of Creationism. Your denseness is astounding. If you continue to spam my feedback box with "they didn't mention Intelligent Design so ID is automatically false" nonsense, you will be blocked. Prove to me that all of these papers, articles, books, and other such writings are all not peer-reviewed, and then you will have recovered yourself.
There is no way you read all of my reports, papers and articles in one night, my friend. Try again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>