Even a chimp can write code

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Proof that Natural Selection really works

If you needed any proof that Natural Selection really works, look no further than the election results from Dover, PA. At the polls, voters yesterday booted out eight of the nine Dover Area School Board members — all Republicans — who last year engineered the inclusion of intelligent design in the curriculum. That decision by the school board gave Dover the unique distinction of being the first school district in America to order the introduction of intelligent design in school curricullum. The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

Talk about learning the hard way!

Email this | Bookmark this


  • Actually, I don't believe that any of the intelligent design proponents argue that Darwin is wrong, or that natural selection doesn't work.

    They argue, if I'm not mistaken, that there are some fundamental processes that biology, chemistry, and physics cannot, as of now, explain (mostly some of the mutation processes), and that the possibility should be considered that some third party is responsible.

    True, most of the intelligent design crowd is of the opinion that this third party is omnipotent and omniscient (i.e. God), but there are plenty out there who are of the opinion that life was seeded by an older species than us; this view actually pops up surprisingly frequently amongst science fiction. To name a couple, "Mission to Mars" had a Martian people seed life on Earth when their planet was destroyed by a meteor, and I believe that there was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that explained away the practically all-humanoid aliens.

    Also, do note that the actual requirement was a four-paragraph statement explaining how Darwin merely came up with a theory. If you'll recall back to an elementary philosophy or science course, we don't ever actually 'prove' scientific theories; we merely build up evidence in favor of them. When something important doesn't agree, we change the theory. As such, we can never prove Darwin's theory, or disprove intelligent design.

    By Blogger Nick, at November 13, 2005 at 12:32 PM  

  • In fact, the thing I find most disappointing about this is that anybody cared enough to remove the four-paragraph statement; truly, is the five minutes it takes to read the damn thing actually worth this much effort?

    By Blogger Nick, at November 13, 2005 at 12:33 PM  

  • It's a four-paragraph statement this month, 6 paragraphs next month, 10 paragraphs the next month, a completely revamped textbook next school year, and evolution theory removed entirely from all textbooks in 5 years.

    You fight it now, when they're just nibbling at your fingers, so that you don't have to fight it when they've devoured your entire hand.

    By Anonymous madfinn, at November 25, 2005 at 12:04 PM  

  • Let's face it, intelligent design is merely a facade for creationism. And a rather transparent one at that. If intellgent design even belongs in schools, it belongs in the philosophy or religion classes, not in science class. Unlike those other branches, science holds a far higher burden of proof. Besides, people who believe in science - regardless of their religious affilations - can sleep peacefully at night knowing that what is unknown is not unknowable or a mark of the divine, merely that it is unanswered or unproven.

    By Blogger Ashish, at November 28, 2005 at 1:19 PM  

  • Both valid points; certainly, though, the local community should have the right to modify the curriculum in such a minor way as it does.

    Certainly, in a democracy, there should be a certain degree to which people a free to elect the majority-desired curricula, and also a certain degree to which the minority can impose their will on it through the legal system. I'm merely saying that if the community voted for it, hooray! Democracy is working; perhaps it's not the best solution, but I firmly believe that it's their choice.

    Now, if the people against the statement feel that strongly about it, perhaps they should bring up the topic with their elected representatives, or perhaps should have more carefully thought about the representatives they elected in the first place. If there aren't enough of them to sway enough representatives, then perhaps they should move, or homeschool their children, or send them to a private school.

    And intelligent design is not a facade for creationism; I believe the two views are actually mutually exclusive, as intelligent design acknowledges evolution as a correct theory, while creationism refutes it.

    By Blogger Nick, at December 15, 2005 at 9:36 PM  

  • Your point about scientific standards and it belonging to a philosophy course is, however, very persuading; I disagree with it, but I have yet to articulate why...it may take some time to stew...

    Also, why can't I use a span tag?

    By Blogger Nick, at December 15, 2005 at 9:38 PM  

  • So a chimp can write a code?? Thats amassing! But haven't chimps been able to do a lot of the stuff humans do? The amount of calculations that go on to simply close or open a hand are so complex they take the greatest computers hours to work out. So a chimp being able to do much more than close his hand would prove that his brain is superior to a computer, would that not make him intelligent? Actually, Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.
    Learn, Hmm doesn't that mean that if a chimp can Learn how to write a code, or act in the circus, or walk on his hands, he is intelligent? Does it not?
    Any being with the ability to write a code has a form of intelligence.

    A code has to be created by an intelligent being. What code do you have or can you show that proves that a code can be natural?
    There are rules to a code being written, making it impossible to be naturally occurring. This is saying that there must be a author of DNA because DNA is IN FACT a code.

    Now natural selection? I believe that there is a meaning behind Natural selection, its simple genetics.

    For instance; AA is long hair BB is short hair AB is medium.

    You have some dogs,
    Possibilities of decendets;
    AA,AA BB,BB AB,AB AA,AB etc.
    In the arctic BB,BB or AB,BB and some AA,BB and AB,AB's would Freeze
    So soon you are left with only
    AA,AA, or AA,AB soon the B gene just disappears.
    And in the Desert, the A genes would die off. That is not evolution, that is simply Genetics.

    Evolution is not possible because information cannot naturally be added, so you say that a mutation is added information but in fact it is not, every mutation known to man has been a replication of data that was already within the cell no new Information has been acquired only replicated.

    Evolution can NEVER be empirical information because it can never be monitored or proven to exist, it requires "billions" of years to take place there fore making it impossible to monitor.

    I think ill take a breather from that one.

    By Anonymous Johnny, at November 27, 2007 at 7:57 PM  

Post a Comment | Home | Inference: my personal blog